Appraising teachers

in schools

The Editor

Les Bell is Senior Lecturer in Education at the University of

Warwick. He has taught in primary and secondary schools, and
at Coventry College of Education (now part of the University
of Warwick). He regularly works in schools as a consultant and
teaches on in-service management courses for teachers. He is
co-author (with Peter Maher) of Leading a Pastoral Team
(Blackwell, 1986).

Contributors

Francis Arnold, Les Bell, Kingsley Bungard, Clive Carthew, Harry

Moore, Jenny Morris, A.J.Richardson, C.D.M.Rhodes, S.M.Slater,
Norman Thomas
Routledge Education Books

Advisory editor: John Eggleston

Professor of Education
University of Warwick
Appraising teachers
in schools
A practical guide

Edited by

Les Bell

Routledge
London
First published in 1988 by
Routledge
a division of Routledge, Chapman and Hall
11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2002.

© Les Bell 1988

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or

reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Appraising teachers in schools: a practical
guide. —(Routledge education books).
1. Great Britain. Schools. Teachers.
Performance. Assessment
I. Bell, Les
371.1’44’0941

ISBN: 0-415-01301-1 (Print Edition)

ISBN 0-203-03872-X Master e-book ISBN
ISBN 0-203-17554-9 (Glassbook Format)
Contents

List of Figures vii

1 Appraisal and the Search for Accountability 1

Les Bell
2 The Appraisal of Teachers 21
Norman Thomas
3 A Planned Approach to Staff Appraisal in 32
Schools
Kingsley Bungard
4 Practical Appraisal in Primary Schools 44
C.D.M.Rhodes
5 The Introduction of Staff Appraisal into Schools 58
Francis Arnold
6 Whole-School Evaluation and Staff Appraisal 85
in Secondary Schools
S.M.Slater
7 Whole-School Staff Appraisal in the Primary 104
School
A.J.Richardson
8 The Introduction of Staff Appraisal to a Newly 121
Amalgamated School
Jenny Morris
9 Appraisal and the Headteacher 137
Harry Moore
10 Classroom Observation 154
Clive Carthew
11 Staff Appraisal and the Professional Development 164
of Teachers
Les Bell

v
Contents

Notes on Contributors 182

Bibliography 185
Appendices 189
Index 198

vi
Figures

Figure 5.1 The training process 59

Figure 5.2 Generating acceptance 61
Figure 5.3 Interactions 62
Figure 5.4 Three types of change 64
Figure 5.5 Introducing appraisal—the 66
developmental process
Figure 5.6 A career development review plan 78
(Schools A & B)
Figure 5.7 Appraisal document (Schools A & B) 79
Figure 5.8 Professional development review 80
document (School C)
Figure 6.1 Pressures to review the work of 89
schools
Figure 6.2 Staffing matrix for allocating 94
responsibilities in a school
Figure 6.3 A process framework for senior staff 96
Figure 6.4 The process of review at department 98
level
Figure 6.5 The process of school review 100
Figure 7.1 Model for school development 110
Figure 7.2 Aims for the headteacher 111
Figure 7.3 Aims and objectives of a language 112
development post-holder
Figure 7.4 Appraisal and evaluation 116
Figure 7.5 Recording the appraisal 118
Figure 8.1 Review: round one 125
Figure 8.2 Review: round two 131
Figure 9.1 The role of appraisal 142
Figure 9.2 A generic job specification 143

vii
List of Figures

Figure 9.3 A set of objectives for staff appraisal 144

Figure 9.4 A specimen pro forma 145
Figure 9.5 A job specification for the headteacher 148
Figure 9.6 Headteacher’s appraisal form 150
Figure 9.7 Who might appraise the headteacher? 151
Figure 10.1 Classroom observation as a 162
developmental process
Figure 11.1 Questions explored by appraisal 166
process
Figure 11.2 Staff appraisal in the balance 171
Figure 11.3 Key elements in the staff appraisal 177
interview
Figure 11.4 School development and staff appraisal 180

viii
Chapter 1

Appraisal and the Search

for Accountability
Les Bell

This book is written for teachers. It is written for those teachers

who are responsible for planning and implementing formal staff
appraisal procedures and for those who may, in the future, share
such a responsibility. It is also written for teachers who will
experience staff appraisal in one or more of its many forms. In
one sense, therefore, it is for all teachers since the new Pay and
Conditions of Employment (DES, 1987) indicate that all teachers
may be required to take part in some form of staff appraisal.
Not only is this book for teachers but it is also based on the
practical experience of teachers. All the chapters, with the exception
of the first two and the last one, are written either by teachers
who have experience in appraisal or about the experiences of
such teachers. All the contributors have practical experience in
evaluation and appraisal and, in particular, in the application of
appraisal processes to schools. The book is a way of sharing those
practical experiences in the hope that colleagues might benefit
from them.
The work described was carried out by a range of people in
a variety of institutions. Not only were the institutions different
but the relationship of the writers to their institutions varied. Some
are the headteachers or deputy headteachers, while others are
external consultants invited to work with the teachers in the schools.
This range of activities reflects the rich variety of approaches
to staff appraisal which can be found in schools. It also reflects
the extent to which the most appropriate and effective form of
staff appraisal is that which is derived from, and rooted in, the
particular circumstances of each school. Staff appraisal processes

1
Les Bell

must take into account the uniqueness of each school and the
individuality of teachers within that school. No attempt has been
made, therefore, to suggest that there is only one workable model
of staff appraisal. Indeed the various experiences described here
exhibit significant differences, although they also have key features
in common. The differences, the common features, and a series
of general principles, which might be deduced from the practical
approaches to staff appraisal on which this book is based, will
all be discussed in the final chapter. Chapter one sets the scene
for the practical examples of the introduction of staff appraisal
into schools which follow. It seeks to examine those factors which
have produced this interest in the appraisal of teachers. It explores
a range of different meanings which can be attached to staff
appraisal, some of which are more helpful than others. It seeks
to place in context those processes which are discussed in
subsequent chapters.

In search of accountability

The appraisal of teachers in schools is a process which is as old

as the education service itself, although the nature of the process
and the criteria used have changed over time. Grace (1985) has
argued that ‘gentleness and piety’ were preferred to ‘cleverness’
by the early inspectors of schools. Such ideological reliability,
which was embodied in religious and moral expressions of
respectability, was soon linked to performance indicators. The
first question asked by those responsible for managing schools
or appointing teachers was: ‘What percentage did you pass last
year? Upon what is the salary and the reputation of a teacher to
depend? Upon his ability to turn out so many yards of reading,
writing and arithmetic from his human machines…’ (Gautney,
1937, p.119 quoted in Grace, 1985, p.8.)
Thus the ethics of industry, expressed in terms of measured
production and close managerial control, were applied to schools
more than a century ago. As a response to this teachers developed
their own association to struggle for professional autonomy. By
1926, the claim of teachers to be professional and for schools
to be relatively autonomous institutions was being taken seriously,
if only to create a buffer against socialist ideas. As White has
argued, ‘…it was no longer in the interests of anti-Socialists,
including Conservatives, to keep curriculum policy in the hands
of the state…the Conservatives had everything to gain and nothing

2
 Appraisal and the Search for Accountability

to lose from taking curricula out of the politicians’ hands.’ (White,

1975, p.28 quoted in Grace, 1985, p.11.)
What was intended here was that a system of controls over
education would be created which was mediated through the
professionalism of teachers. One of the effects of this process
was to devolve evaluation and appraisal of teachers to headteachers
while, at the same time, creating a climate which made open,
formal performance assessment extremely difficult since the ethic
of legitimated professionalism was based on teacher autonomy.
This, in turn, presupposed individual self-evaluation and self-
regulation by teachers themselves. Perhaps understandably,
therefore, being a ‘good professional’, having an acceptable
personality and establishing good social relations were esteemed
qualities and the procedures used to assess these qualities were
general, diffuse and less than systematic (Grace, 1978). Thus
teachers applying for posts and asking for references were often
unclear about the criteria upon which they would be judged and
unsure about how the information would be collected. This situation
still pertains in many schools.
In 1976, James Callaghan made his Ruskin College speech.
The argument he put forward was partly a response to the then
current criticism of education, and partly a means of raising a
series of concerns about the extent to which the school curriculum
was appropriate for the last quarter of the twentieth century. In
particular, it raised the issues of the need for a core curriculum
for all pupils; the need to pay more attention to the requirements
of industry and to develop more positive attitudes towards industry
on the part of young people; and the need to develop stronger
links between schools and the wider society in order that the
great secret garden, the curriculum, could come under public
scrutiny. In order for this to happen teachers had to become more
accountable to interest groups outside the school, including parents
and industrialists. Thus, as Nisbet (1986) has argued, the
accountability movement and the pressure for formal teacher
appraisal is a challenge to the claim for autonomy by the teaching
profession. This challenge is specific to education in the sense
that it is an attempt to assert the right of non-professionals to
have their views about education taken into account. It is also
part of a more general challenge to professional autonomy for,
as Leigh (1979) has argued, professions are suspected of a
conspiracy against the laity.
Teachers who shelter behind ‘the protective barrier of
professionalism’ (Nisbet, 1980, p.12) are also more difficult to

3
Les Bell

manage and this at a time when the need to manage the teaching
force more effectively was being identified by successive
Secretaries of State for Education and Science. In 1977 Shirley
Williams argued in her Green Paper, quoted in The Times
Educational Supplement, that if the education service was to give
value for money, then, a high priority had to be given to, ‘The
establishment of standard procedures for advice and, where
necessary, warning to teachers whose performance is considered
unsatisfactory’ (TES, 9.11.84, p.7).
By 1983, Sir Keith Joseph was arguing that those managing
schools had a clear responsibility to establish a policy for staff
development based on the assessment of every teacher’s performance
(DES, 1983). This heralded what has been called, ‘the Government’s
managerialist strategy for developing the statutory phase of
schooling’ (Wilcox, 1986, p.1). This was followed, early in 1984,
with the statement that every LEA should have accurate information
about each of its teachers and that such information should be
based on, among other things, an assessment of the teacher’s
classroom performance (Joseph, 1984). This point was reaffirmed
a year later when the Secretary of State asserted that the LEA
can only be satisfied that each school is properly staffed if it knows
enough about the competences of the individual teachers. Such
knowledge could only come from some form of appraisal (Joseph,
1985). The White Paper Better Schools (DES, 1985a) gave notice
that the Secretary of State would seek new powers to ensure that
such appraisal schemes could be imposed on teachers if this became
necessary. In 1986, Kenneth Baker, successor to Keith Joseph as
Secretary of State for Education, piloted his new Education Act
through Parliament. Contained within its strange miscellany of
provision was the enabling legislation to which his predecessor
had referred. This legislation is now embodied in The Education
(School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions of Employment) Order 1987,
which imposed, for the first time, detailed conditions of service
on teachers. These include, for headteachers:

(8a) Supervising and participating in any arrangements

within an agreed national framework, for the appraisal
of the performance of teachers who teach in the School
(Schedule 1, DES, 1987).

and for all other teachers:

(4) Participating in any arrangements within an agreed

4
 Appraisal and the Search for Accountability

national framework for the appraisal of his performance

and that of other teachers (Schedule 3, DES 1987).

Thus it appears that the appraisal of teachers’ performance

is with us in spirit, if not in action. Teachers are, in ways as yet
unclear, to be held accountable for their professional practices.

Responses to the search for accountability

The movement towards the appraisal of teacher performance is

only one part of what seems to be a set of strategies for changing
the nature of education provided in our schools. These strategies
include an attempt to restructure and revise the curriculum. This
can be traced through publications such as A Framework for the
School Curriculum (DES, 1979b), The School Curriculum (DES,
1981a) and Circular 6/81. In this each LEA was instructed to:

(a) review its policy for the school curriculum in its areas, and
its arrangements for making that policy known to all
concerned;
(b) review the extent to which current provision in the schools
is consistent with that policy; and
(c) plan future developments accordingly, within the resources
available. (DES, 181b, Circular 6/81, Section 5.)

The Curriculum from 5 to 16 series followed, number 2 of

which sought to promote professional discussion about the whole
curriculum in terms of breadth, balance, relevance and
differentiation (DES, 1985c). At the same time, a number of
initiatives were taken that were intended to influence both
curriculum content and pedagogy. These included the introduction
of new technology to all sectors of education, and the development
of the Technical and Vocational Education Initiatives (TVEI) which
were funded by the MSC. The school curriculum now seems to
be about to experience an even more significant shift with the
proposed introduction of a national curriculum. The implications
of this for staff appraisal will be explored in chapter two.
Implicit in this re-analysis of the curriculum has been a re-
examination of forms of assessment and a debate about processes
of assessment. For example Bates (1984) has argued that formative,
criterion-referenced, diagnostic and teacher-made forms of
assessment may well serve ‘educational’ purposes more faithfully

5
Les Bell

than summative, norm-referenced, performance-based and

standardized tests. These, he argues, are more closely related
to ‘managerial’ purposes of sorting, classifying, allocating and
controlling pupils. The Assessment of Performance Unit has been
active in trying to identify criterion-referenced assessment
processes across the curriculum while the pupil-profiling and the
GCSE have added impetus to such developments. The proposed
introduction of ‘bench-mark’ testing for all children at 7, 11 and
14 years of age will bring this aspect of education into the limelight
yet again, although it remains to be seen how far the worst fears
of the teaching profession about the stultifying and regimenting
effects of these tests are realized.
The trend towards the appraisal of teachers, therefore, needs
to be seen in the context of a series of other, perhaps related,
changes in education. These changes may not all be taking us
in the same direction. For example, there seems to be some
significant contradictions in the emphasis on cross-curriculum,
integrated approaches to teaching contained in, say, TVEI and
CPVE (Certificate of Pre-Vocational Education), and the strong
subject emphasis which, it appears, will pervade the national
curriculum. As will be argued below, similar contradictions can
be identified in the various sets of meanings which can be and
have been attached to staff appraisal during the debate about its
appropriateness for use in schools.
This debate is part of a broader reconsideration of the
management of the teaching force. The extent to which teachers
should be accountable and the identification of ‘for what’ and
‘to whom’ they should be accountable have been crucial aspects
of this debate. These issues have not been settled but the role
of the school governors in the accountability process has been
considerably enhanced by the 1986 Education Act while LEAs
have had thrust upon them a more active role in managing the
curriculum. This may soon change yet again if schools are given
the opportunity to become financially autonomous or even to
opt out of the LEA framework entirely. For the present there
has been a significant devolution of power and responsibility from
LEAs to schools for some aspects of the management of the
teaching force. This is most evident in the area of in-service
training. Here the recent introduction of Grant Related In-Service
Training (GRIST) requires LEAs to provide each school with
the resources to meet staff development needs as identified at
school level. This may enable schools to provide support and
follow-up which can be related to the outcomes of staff appraisal.

6
 Appraisal and the Search for Accountability

Schools have approached staff appraisal from at least three

different positions. Perhaps the school self-evaluation initiatives
were the least threatening and most distantly related to the direct
processes of staff appraisal. Elliot (1981) points out that by 1980
two-thirds of LEAs in England and Wales had been involved in
discussions about school self-evaluation and many had already
produced guidelines indicating to schools how they should go
about evaluating themselves. Clift (1982) suggests that some of
the self-evaluation schemes which followed these guidelines
concentrated on asking about institutional procedures while giving
scant attention to the outcomes of learning and making virtually
no reference to standards (e.g. ILEA, 1977). The use of these
schemes tended to be left to the individual schools. At the other
extreme Clift identified a small group of schemes, exemplified
by that of the Oxfordshire LEA, which contained the external
validation and moderation of internally assessed standards. This
scheme was mandatory in Oxfordshire schools. Clift argues that
all LEA school self-evaluation schemes were expected to promote
professional and institutional development, as well as rendering
the schools in some way accountable for what they were doing.
He suggests that self-evaluation may lead to an awareness of
institutional or professional shortcomings which is necessary before
remedial action can be taken. Such an awareness, while being
necessary for remedial action, is not sufficient of itself to ensure
that remedial action is taken. He concluded that school self-
evaluation will not produce institutional or professional
improvements without a massive input of managerial and leadership
skills and without some means of ensuring that teachers become
involved in those activities which might produce such
improvements.
Perhaps as a result of reaching conclusions similar to those
above; perhaps out of a recognition that the introduction of teacher
appraisal would become almost inevitable; and perhaps out of
a desire to establish and own an appraisal system appropriate
to their own schools, a number of LEAs have begun to establish
staff appraisal procedures in schools. Some of these, such as the
Suffolk scheme, are a product of DES pilot projects, while others
are the result of initiatives from within the LEA itself. These
schemes vary in a number of ways, not least in the extent to
which they place the emphasis on the evaluation and development
functions of the appraisal process. Sidewell (1987) has suggested
that the Croydon scheme is one which places considerable emphasis
on evaluation and accountability. It will measure student

7
Les Bell

performance against standardized tests. Staff appraisal will then

be related to these results. This scheme is explicitly geared towards
promotion within the LEA with potential candidates for promotion
being selected for special training. In the newly revised Solihull
scheme, however, the developmental and evaluative functions are
given equal emphasis:

Purposes
1. Evaluation must be seen as ongoing and applicable to all
levels of the service. Its purpose is to provide information
about the service in order to improve the quality of the service
and to demonstrate accountability.
2. To encourage personal and professional fulfilment and
development of staff. (Solihull, 1986, p.7.)

Staff appraisal here is seen as an integral part of the overall process

of school evaluation with the intention of supporting and
developing effective practices and of generating programmes for
action. The responsibility for this remains with the school, unlike
the Nottinghamshire Professional Development Programme, in
which much of this responsibility rests with the LEA’s Inspectors
(Nottinghamshire, 1985) and where appraisal is part of a
developmental structure. This emphasis is carried even further
as part of Cumbria’s approach. This scheme is specifically
developmental in intent and has been established with teachers.
It stresses the need for reaching an agreement over targets and
criteria by negotiation and for Inspectors to carry out a professional
development function (Cumbria, 1985).
As Nuttall (1986) has argued, therefore, there are a large number
of appraisal schemes which have been devised by LEAs. Perhaps
even more schemes have been devised by individual schools. James
and Newman (1985) discuss a number of such schemes and suggest
that, on the whole, they are essentially formative and developmental
in nature and tend to ignore the summative aspects of teacher
evaluation. The predominant model is one of an interview centred
on target setting and on the evaluation of the extent to which
targets set on previous occasions had been reached. This is linked
with an identification of appropriate career development plans
and necessary staff development training. Although schemes
fostered by LEAs tend to combine both summative and formative
aspects of appraisal, I.B.Butterworth (1985) has argued that some

8
 Appraisal and the Search for Accountability

school schemes are based on departmental reviews which combine

individual appraisal with a review of the curriculum and of
organisational factors, although most of these schemes have not
been in existence long enough for their effects to have been
examined. (Turner and Clift, 1985.) Many of these schemes are
given different titles. Some are described as ‘staff appraisal’ but
many will be identified as ‘career planning’, ‘career review’, or
‘personal professional development’. Some are even given a simple
title of ‘work review’, ‘person review’ or simply ‘review’. In
essence however, it is the meaning attached to the scheme rather
than the descriptive title given to it which is important. As I have
argued elsewhere (Bell, 1987) it is possible to identify a range
of meanings which have been or could be attached to different
staff appraisal schemes. In the next section I wish to consider
briefly some of the more common sets of meanings which have
been attached to a variety of attempts to justify the introduction
of staff appraisal into schools and colleges.

The meanings attached to staff appraisal

Teachers respond to the idea of staff appraisal in a number of

different ways depending on how it is presented to them. As Arnold
demonstrates in chapter five, to introduce staff appraisal into any
school is to generate change. This process, like any other change,
requires careful and sympathetic management in order to minimize
the threat which it may be thought to contain by the staff of the
school, and to reduce the potential for conflict. Several contributors,
including A.J.Richardson (chapter seven), and S.M.Slater (chapter
six), raise these issues. Teachers’ attitudes towards staff appraisal
are also determined, in part, by the meanings which they attach
to it and by their interpretations of the meanings attached to
appraisal by other significant people. This section will examine
six such sets of meanings which have exerted a considerable
influence over staff attitudes to appraisal processes in schools
in recent years.

(i) Identifying incompetent teachers

The first and, perhaps the least positive and helpful rationale
used to justify staff appraisal in schools was that based on the
need to identify incompetent teachers. This position was predicated
on the view that the teaching force needed to be cleansed of

9
Les Bell

teachers who were in some way incompetent and who were

probably responsible for the ills of the education system. The
most significant example of this position can be found in Sir
Keith Joseph’s speech at the North of England Education
Conference in January 1984, in which he argued that it was vital
for incompetent teachers in our schools to be identified and
removed. He argued that there was a case for removing ‘such
teachers from a profession where they can do such disproportionate
harm’ (TES, 13.1.84). This view was tempered somewhat when
he denied wishing to link annual appraisal to instant remedies
or penalties, (TES, 22.11.85) though this did not mean that the
idea would be dropped. He pressed this view further by asking
students to comment on the comparative quality of the teachers
during private meetings with them on several visits to schools
over a 2-year period. This belief in the existence of a substantial
number of incompetent teachers has proved difficult to sustain
but, nevertheless, it is still implicit in a number of statements
on appraisal contained in DES publications. In particular it can
be found embodied in Better Schools (DES, 1985a) and in Quality
in Schools: Evaluation and Appraisal (DES, 1985b). Furthermore,
the insistence that: ‘The employing authority can only be satisfied
that each school is properly staffed if it knows enough about
the skills and competences of individual teachers’ (Joseph, 1985:
my italics) served to reinforce the view that appraisal was, at
least in part, about the analysis of competence and, therefore,
the identification of incompetence.
To place emphasis on the identification of incompetent teachers
when discussing the DES’s position was, according to David
Hancock, Permanent Secretary at the DES, to misconstrue the
Department’s intentions and motives (Hancock, 1985). It was
not intended to use appraisal to remove unsuitable people from
teaching although, ‘Where the appraisal reveals unsatisfactory
performance and it persists even after counselling, support and
training, then action must be taken in the interests of the college
or school and its students. In the last resort, staff whose
performance cannot be restored to a satisfactory standard ought
to be dismissed. The burden of an incompetence which has proved
to be irremediable weighs heavily on colleagues—a point
frequently overlooked.’ (Hancock, 1985, pp.4–5.)
In spite of this, Hancock stressed that appraisal ought to be
seen, not as a threat but as presenting a series of opportunities,
not least of which might be to earn more money or gain
promotion.

10
 Appraisal and the Search for Accountability

(ii) Improving pay and promotion

The linking of appraisal to pay and/or promotion should not be
seen as payment by results (Hancock 1985). Rather this linking
is an attempt to ensure that informed decisions are taken about
the career progression of school teachers. In short, ‘decisions
directly affecting career development within the current salary
structure—internal promotion and references for external
promotions for example—should be as well informed as possible’
(Hancock, 1985, p.5). This knowledge, he argued, can best be
acquired through staff appraisals which focus on performance.
In matters of performance, ‘It remains the Department’s view
that a pay system which rewards exceptional performance in the
classroom would be very much in the interests of the teaching
profession and of the nation.’ (Hancock, 1985, p.18.)
Joseph re-inforced this view when he argued that, ‘During the
period of continuing contraction that lies ahead, I believe that
a solution is most likely to be found by way of reforms which
link higher pay to high quality performance in the classroom
and in the management of school.’ (Joseph, 1985.)
In Teaching Quality (DES, 1983) we find a similar suggestion
to the effect that appraisal could lead to the best teachers obtaining
relatively greater rewards for their classroom expertise. In advance
of the new Pay and Conditions of Employment (1987), Angela
Rumbold, a junior minister at the DES, could be found suggesting
that, ‘you’d be pretty daft if you did not think that it’s going to
be linked ultimately. I think it will come slowly but surely.’ (TES,
13.2.87.) ‘It’ in this context was the direct linking of pay and
promotion to the appraisal of performance.
The process of assimilating teachers onto the new salary
structure has been described by the National Union of Teachers
(NUT) as the identification of the super teacher and is based
on the assumption that better teachers deserve higher pay and
that the appropriate process for identifying the high quality
teachers is staff appraisal. This view has been supported by
Trethowan (1985) who argued that the problem of how to
motivate teachers can only be solved by rewarding the efficient
and effective teachers more adequately. His main reservation
is, however, that there will be insufficient money available for
such a system and if funds are not provided then our schools
will suffer. While it cannot be denied that there is a definite
need for the present Burnham salary structure to be reviewed
and replaced by something more appropriate to the last quarter

11
Les Bell

of the twentieth century, it seems unlikely that the identification

of appraisal as the process by which a restructuring might take
place will do anything other than alienate teachers since it will
be regarded by them as a punitive measure if it is related to
salary and merit pay. The NUT makes this quite clear in Teaching
Quality (1984) where it is argued that ‘the union is opposed
to assessment of teacher being linked directly to financial
rewards’ (p.48). Similarly, the Assistant Masters and Mistresses
Association (AMMA) have taken a view that appears to try to
reconcile two sets of meanings. They acknowledge that one
purpose of appraisal is to aid planning for promotion (AMMA,
1985) and that appraisal will lose much of its credibility if its
outcomes are not seen to be related to career development.
Nevertheless, AMMA’s document argues that linking appraisal
directly with promotion and salary increases can only serve to
inhibit the frank and honest discussion which is so necessary.
A number of teachers’ professional associations regard as equally
inhibiting a view of appraisal which seeks to place the
identification of incompetent teachers and the pay and promotions
issue in the hands of groups external to the school.

(iii) External accountability

A set of meanings attached to appraisal and based on the view
that there are a significant number of weak teachers who need
to be removed from the system in order to restore public credibility
in education has been developed by Eric Midwinter. He justifies
his support for teacher appraisal by arguing that ‘surrogate
consumers’, that is parents, should have more say in teacher
appraisal. This would, he argues, allay their anxiety about, ‘bullies,
mental now more than physical’ and the ‘no hopers and
nincompoops’ as well as the ‘idlers’ who now teach in schools
and who were recruited during the late 1950s and early 1960s
when it is argued standards of entry were dropped at a time of
acute shortage. Midwinter places considerable faith in the power
of parents to assess who the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ teachers are. He
goes on to argue that ‘the lore of the launderette is unerringly
accurate’ (TES, 8.2.85) and that to involve parents, and members
of the wider community outside schools would improve teacher
credibility among the public. In a similar vein, Kenneth Baker
has argued that it is no longer possible to continue with a system
of education under which teachers decide what pupils should
learn without reference to clear nationally agreed objectives, and

12
 Appraisal and the Search for Accountability

without having to expose and, if necessary, justify their decisions

to parents, employers and the public (TES, 16.1.87). The new
curriculum responsibilities which are devolved to school governors,
while not directly involving them in staff appraisal, do give them
significantly more influence over the school curriculum should
they decide to exercise it. Thus teachers must be accountable
and must be seen to be accountable.
This set of meanings, like the first two, are based on a ‘deficit’
view of schools and the teachers who work in them. The three
sets of meanings share the view that there is considerable room
for improvement within the teaching profession. The point of
departure is over how such an improvement might be best brought
about. The search for the incompetent teachers as envisaged by
the DES would be carried out according to the criteria set out
in DES publications and would presumably inform those staff
appraisal procedures which LEAs would establish. From
Midwinter’s perspective appraisal would be carried out by groups
of parents acting, presumably, as vigilante representatives of all
of the parents to a particular school. Quite how this process would
work is never spelled out. Whatever the outcome of such a process
it is doubtful whether it would lead to anything much more than
plugging gaps in provision, while it would probably serve to
demoralise the conscientious rather than to motivate or improve
the incompetent. It is highly unlikely to lead to any real
improvement in performance, however this may be measured.

(iv) Improving teacher performance

Strangely enough, a similar set of meanings to those outlined
directly above, and containing an implicitly ‘deficit’ model of
teachers, is evident when the views expressed by headteachers
and LEA representatives are considered although, in this case,
incompetence is replaced by demoralization, and the appraisal
process would be carried out by teachers themselves within their
own schools. The use of staff appraisal for motivational purposes
is well documented in industrial circles. The extent to which this
deliberate provision of a Hawthorn Effect will work is not clear,
but the assumption that it will is certainly built into a number
of management courses, and has also been made by HMI who
argue that in many cases appraisal procedures, ‘lead to a better
working climate and to improved performance by the schools
and by individual teachers’ (DES, 1985b, paragraph 141).

13
Les Bell

This emphasis on improving teacher performance can also be

found in Better Schools (DES, 1985a) where it is argued that
all teachers need help in assessing their own professional
performance and in building on their strengths and working to
improve their limitations. To that end, systematic nationwide
arrangements for appraising teacher performance are essential.
How far such appraisal needs to be based on classroom visiting
and upon an appraisal of both pupils’ work and of the teacher’s
contribution to the life of the school, as suggested in Teaching
Quality (DES, 1983) is open to doubt. Certainly, from this
perspective,

The Cornerstone of appraisal schemes is the belief that

teachers wish to improve their performance in order to
enhance the education of pupils. Following from this is
the assumption that appraisal systems should have a
positive orientation: that is, the purpose of appraisal
should be to develop teachers professionally rather than
to “get at” them …
(Suffolk LEA, 1985. quoted in Evaluation and Education, joint
issues 9/10 April, 1986, p.10.)

However, as Wilcox (1986) has pointed out, the observation

of performance—particularly if attempted on some kind of
systematic basis—would appear to distinguish teacher appraisal
from many of the appraisal systems which operate in industry,
commerce and the other public services. These typically consist
of a structured interview reviewing past progress and agreeing
to future targets. They rarely include pre-arranged and systematic
observation of people’s day-to-day performance. This difference
seems to have gone by unremarked in the current debate. We,
however, examine in detail in chapter nine the planning and
preparation necessary for classroom observation as well as, in
chapter three, that necessary for structured interviewing. As will
be shown in several chapters, especially six, seven, and eight,
the appraisal process can generate significant amounts of valuable
educational information about the staff of schools. This, in itself,
provides a fifth rationale for appraisal. Such knowledge, it is
argued, can contribute to the more effective management of the
teaching force.

14
 Appraisal and the Search for Accountability

(v) Effective management of teachers

If the set of meanings which links motivation, reward and appraisal
is perceived as hostile and threatening by teachers and their
representatives then the argument that appraisal might be justified
in terms of the needs which schools and LEAs have to plan the
staffing in educational institutions could, at first sight, be regarded
as more neutral. Again, Sir Keith Joseph has argued (1985) that
LEAs need to know about the skills and competences of individual
teachers and that such knowledge can only come from some form
of systematic appraisal. This view was recently re-asserted in
‘Those having torches…’ (Suffolk LEA, 1985) which drew
attention to the need LEAs have for more information upon which
to base their planning as well as the need for resources to establish
schemes of staff appraisal and to train relevant staff.
Hancock, quoting a DES policy statement on this subject to
be found in Teaching Quality, stated that:

The Government welcome recent moves towards self-

assessment by schools and teachers, and believe these
should help to improve school standards and curricula.
But employers can manage their teacher force effectively
only if they have accurate knowledge of each teacher’s
performance. The Government believe that for this
purpose formal assessment of teacher performance is
necessary.
(Hancock 1985, p.2.)

Furthermore, he suggested that this need for information on

which to base management policy was not confined to the LEAs.
Managers in schools also: ‘need accurate and up-to-date
information on performance in post in order to take good
management decisions—for example, about staff deployment and
in-service training.’ (Hancock 1985, p.5.)
This view, especially in relation to the LEAs, is developed
further in Better Schools (DES, 1985a) where it is argued that
regular and formal appraisal of the performance of all teachers
is necessary if local education authorities are to have the reliable,
comprehensive and up-to-date information to facilitate effective
professional support and development and to deploy teachers to
the best advantage. In the light of statements such as these, it
is quite understandable if teachers in some circumstances regard
appraisal as an attempt to introduce, redefine, or reinforce

15
Les Bell

redeployment practices, especially in those schools which are

beset by a significant problem of contraction in pupil numbers,
rather than as a process in which professional development has
a central place.

(vi) Professional development

Perhaps the least threatening of all the inherent sets of meanings
as far as teachers are concerned is that which links staff appraisal
to the professional development of teachers. This view emerges
both in the documents produced by LEAs such as Solihull and
Cumbria, and also in some DES publications. In Teaching Quality
(DES, 1983) it was argued that those managing the school teacher
force have a clear responsibility to establish a policy for staff
development and training, based on a systematic assessment
of every teacher’s performance. Staff appraisal schemes which
are geared primarily to identifying in-service needs, or other
kinds of experience that might enhance career development,
appear to be, at least in part, acceptable to many teachers if
the views expressed in the publication of teacher unions is to
be accepted. The NUT (1984) argues that what is required is
an annual dialogue or career review between the teacher and
a more experienced colleague, within which the emphasis would
be on planning the teacher’s professional development, evolving
improved or more appropriate teaching skills, and upon
supporting teachers rather than placing them in a competitive
situation for promotion. This, it is argued, would increase job
satisfaction and would benefit the school as the needs of both
teachers and schools could be analysed and identified. With
this in mind, the NUT would support a regular staff review since,
it argues, all staff would benefit from regular periods of discussion
and evaluation with a senior member of staff or headteacher
or, with the agreement of the teacher concerned, with a member
of the authority’s advisory staff, about their current work and
possible in-service education needs (NUT, 1984). AMMA’s view
is even more positively based on the view put forward by
Hancock (1985) that formal appraisal may be the only opportunity
for giving praise where it is due.
Montgomery develops this point further when she points out
that: ‘The essence of appraisal should be positive. Appraisal should
be about “prizing” and “valuing” what is seen.’ (Montgomery
1985, p.16.) Even Sir Keith Joseph recognized that an appraisal
system is also needed for the professional enhancement of the

16
 Appraisal and the Search for Accountability

individual teacher (Joseph, 1985) while Hancock linked appraisal

with its outcomes. ‘To be fully effective an appraisal system would
have to be complemented by better arrangements for the individual
teacher’s career development— including induction, in-service
training, guidance on possible teaching posts and promotion.’
(Hancock, 1985, p.3.) This view is also stated in Teaching Quality
(DES, 1983) which stresses the need for the provision of
professional development and support for teachers. It is made
clear both here and in Better Schools (DES, 1985a) that those
managing the teacher force have a responsibility to establish a
policy for training based on an assessment of every teacher’s
performance.
Thus it appears that a range of meanings can be and, in practice,
often are attached to staff appraisal by those most affected by
it, that is the teachers. As a result of their interpretations of what
appraisal means, teachers’ responses may vary from outright
opposition and rejection to a position in which the fundamental
questions are how staff should be appraised and what the likely
outcomes of the process are. As Wilcox (1986) suggests, therefore,
appraisal is neither a simple nor a unitary concept. Teachers’
responses to it will depend upon their perceptions of its purposes
and, in particular, whether it is formative or summative.

Perceptions and responses

Responses to appraisal at the individual, institutional and the

professional association level are, it has been argued above,
mediated through sets of meanings which are attached to the
process. Opposition to appraisal will almost certainly be generated
by the summative elements of appraisal. These summative elements
may include establishing direct accountabilities, determining pay
levels or promotion prospects and improving performance. The
more formative aspects will be related to the extent to which
the process is used to provide a context for career and professional
development and to situations where specific outcomes of a
developmental nature can be identified. Thus, if appraisal is to
be part of a set of strategies by which teachers are to be held
accountable, then this accountability must have a developmental
emphasis and be a process of professional accounting to colleagues
within the education service.
In fact, a small survey of teachers interested in staff appraisal
indicated that the major difficulty associated with the introduction

17
Les Bell

of staff appraisal tended to focus on the natural suspicion that

many teachers have of such a change in their working conditions
(Bell, 1985). This suspicion was manifested in two forms. Firstly,
it focused on staff appraisal which could be regarded by teachers
as a direct attack on their own professional autonomy. Teachers
have, in the past, exercised this autonomy within their classrooms
almost to the exclusion of all other forms of influence. A staff
appraisal process which impinged on the right of teachers solely
and entirely to make professional judgements about activities
within the confines of the classroom would threaten that jealously
guarded privilege. Secondly, suspicion was also expressed by
some teachers about the ability of their colleagues in middle
or senior management to carry out an effective appraisal process
or to implement such a process impartially because of past
problems or past professional relationship difficulties. These
two basic suspicions lead to a natural reluctance to accept this
change.
Another difficulty which many teachers identified was the extent
to which they would be placing themselves in a highly vulnerable
position if a staff appraisal process required them to indicate those
areas in their professional life where they were experiencing problems
or were requiring help or further training; it was felt that such
information might prejudice promotion prospects or lead to a general
diminution of their esteem without their school. It was also argued
that staff appraisal, if carried out badly, would increase the level
of cynicism within the schools and lead to a lowering of teacher
morale. There would be a lack of commitment not only to staff
appraisal, if this were to happen, but this lack of commitment might
also spread to other areas in which change was desirable. The major
barrier to implementing staff appraisal effectively was believed to
be the extent to which those training needs or staff development
needs, which were identified by the process, could or would be
met by the school or the LEA. Clearly, in order to overcome the
suspicions and concerns, any staff appraisal process needs to be
introduced into a school carefully and effectively. This means that
all those to be involved in such a process require training before
the system can be introduced, and the extent to which such training
is required and the time that it would take was also identified as
a difficulty with introducing an appraisal system. Concern was
expressed about the extent to which LEAs and schools could provide
the necessary training, and the extent to which those people who
were to be in the position of carrying out appraisals would recognize
that such training was necessary.

18
 Appraisal and the Search for Accountability

In spite of those very real fears, anxieties and reservations

Hancock, speaking in 1985, clearly indicated that the Secretary
of State would seek powers to enable him to make regulations:

…requiring local authorities to appraise their teachers

with a certain prescribed minimum frequency and laying
down a national framework for the way in which
appraisal might be done. We recognise that it is entirely
possible that everything needed to create a national
appraisal system will be settled in negotiations between
the teacher unions and the employers and that every
authority will agree to operate in broadly the same way.
But it is also possible that the outcome will in practice
be a great deal more untidy than that. I can envisage
circumstances in which it would be generally agreed that
the education service as a whole would benefit from
regulations prescribing a framework for an appraisal
system to cover teachers in all colleges and schools.
(Hancock, 1985, p.11.)

As was shown above, this has now happened. Small wonder,

therefore, that a significant number of LEAs and a rapidly growing
number of schools have responded to this situation by devising
their own staff appraisal system. This book used the experience
of some of those schools as a basis for a practical guide to
colleagues in all types of schools who may soon wish to develop
an appraisal system for their own school. In chapter two Norman
Thomas discusses some basic principles and raises some broad
questions which must be considered when contemplating the
introduction of staff appraisal to a school. Kingsley Bungard,
in chapter three, provides a detailed, planned approach to appraisal
in which staff in schools can devise an appraisal system to suit
their own particular situation. This framework was applied by
C.D.M.Rhodes to his own school, and he describes the process
in chapter four. An alternative approach to the introduction of
staff appraisal is analysed by Francis Arnold in chapter five. Here
a consultant used a similar process in three schools with some
interestingly different outcomes. From these experiences a series
of stages through which the introduction of staff appraisal might
pass are identified, together with a suggested time scale. In chapter
six S.M.Slater shows how the introduction of staff appraisal to
two schools has led him to believe that the process must be directly
linked to a discussion of aims and objectives for all the school

19
Les Bell

as well as of its consituent parts. A.J. Richardson, in chapter

seven, develops a similar theme when he considers staff appraisal
in his primary school. He locates its introduction in the context
of a series of wider discussions about the professional concerns
of the staff in his school and about possible ways of further
developing the existing expertise of his classroom-based teachers.
The professional development theme is picked up again by Jenny
Morris in chapter eight. She shows how she was able to use a
voluntary appraisal process to help to facilitate the amalgamation
of three schools by linking a staff development programme to
the needs identified by the process. The process was, itself, a
significant factor in helping to create a sense of identity for the
new school. The headteacher was not directly involved in this
process but the relationship of the headteacher to the appraisal
process, and the vexed question of who appraises the headteacher
is considered by Harry Moore in chapter nine where he sets out
to deal with the issues raised for the head by staff appraisal.
Another contentious issue, the role of classroom observation in
staff appraisal, is discussed by Clive Carthew in chapter ten. He
provides some guidelines for those who wish to include appraisal
in the classroom as part of their staff appraisal process. The final
chapter will consider the main advantages and disadvantages of
staff appraisal and will suggest that, if it is to be successful and
acceptable, it needs to be an integral part of the school’s staff
development programme.

20
Chapter 2

The Appraisal of Teachers

Norman Thomas

Informal appraisal
As we saw in chapter one, appraisal has always been part of daily
life in all schools. Teachers appraise children, sometimes to
elucidate where a child stands as compared with others, but more
often to judge what he or she knows and can do so that decisions
may be taken on what to move on to next. For the most part
covertly, children form views about each other and about their
teachers, and teachers form views about each other. The appraisal
that has been most influential on practice has arisen from teachers’
personal reflections on their own work.
Teachers’ opinions of each other have in the main been arrived
at informally and incidentally. They are shaped, as it were, out
of the corner of the eye or from what is discovered about what
children know when taking over responsibility for their teaching.
There have been two main circumstances in which the process
has been more formal: teachers in their probationary year have
had reports written on them and forwarded to the LEA; and heads
have written accounts of teachers’ work and effectiveness in
references and testimonials when new jobs or promotions are
sought. What is now being proposed, and what we expect to be
generally established, is a systematic and overt appraisal of the
work of teachers. That process is the subject of the rest of this
chapter.

21
Norman Thomas

The purposes of formal appraisal

A formal appraisal system should serve one principal and two

main dependent purposes. The principal aim should be the
improvement of children’s education, and the worth of any
system should be judged by the nature of the improvement it
produces.
The first dependent purpose is the professional development
of the teacher. The appraisal process should enable a teacher
to become increasingly effective in his or her current role; it
should make possible adjustment to the present role that would
make better use of his or her strengths; and should open up
the possibilities of major changes of role, either within the school
or elsewhere, so that the teacher may make progress in the
profession. The second dependent purpose is the management
of teachers within the system. At school level this can help to
determine what new role a teacher might best undertake to
forward the work of the school as a whole. From a broader
viewpoint, it might lead to the identification and development
of the next generation of heads; or ensure that the system responds
to children with special educational needs by identifying teachers
with marked sympathies for children in difficulties; or stimulate
movement between schools so as to make better use of a teacher’s
talents where numbers are falling in one place and growing in
another, or where there is some specific shortage of interest
and expertise. It follows that a satisfactory appraisal system
is not simply a process by which teachers are assessed. It must
include the means by which the implications of assessments
are put into effect, taking account of the principal and the
dependent purposes.

The criteria used in appraisal

The first stage in the appraisal process is to define a teacher’s

job. There is, at the time of writing, no generally agreed definition
available, and though current national discussions on conditions
of service may provide general headings, more detail is required
for day-to-day practice. It would be a mistake to conceive of
an appraisal system as applying to unchanged arrangements and
unchanging requirements upon teachers. Any appraisal must take
account of the school environment, the size and nature of its
catchment area, and any changes that are taking place inside the

22
 The Appraisal of Teachers

school—whether by intention or force of circumstance—or in

its surroundings. Anyone who must later take account of the results
of an appraisal needs to have regard to its context as well as to
its specific result.
Given that there are differences of role within schools,
differences between schools, and changes over time, how far is
it possible for assessments to be expressed in general terms valid
in all primary teaching? Is it enough to assess broadly whether
the teacher’s work is sufficiently prepared, appropriate to the
children and followed up, that order is maintained, that reasonable
relations are established with other members of staff and with
parents, that the teaching area is kept in a satisfactory condition?
The difficulty with such broad headings is that superficially similar
assessments may mean different things for different teachers and
in different schools. The appraisal may require the use of specific
criteria, depending on the nature of the teacher’s job within the
school: differentiating levels of work between three or four children
in a remedial group does not present the same problems as
differentiating between 35 of a wide age range in a mixed
catchment area; the elements of differentiation best used in teaching
a group of 3-year-olds are not the same as for a class of 11-
year-olds. In one school, ‘order’ may be judged by whether the
children are quiet and deferential; in another, it may be thought
right for children to be inquisitive, questioning, even of the teacher,
and buzzing. Establishing satisfactory relations with other members
of staff has different connotations in a school where teachers
work largely separately as compared with another where each
acts as a coordinator in some aspect of the curriculum. Furthermore,
if a teacher knows only the broad headings used for assessment
he or she would have to guess at the appraiser’s preferences within
headings. A similar difficulty would be faced by anyone who
was later required to interpret the result of the appraisal.
Within schools there should be a sharper definition of the
teacher’s role—the job description—than can be provided by broad
headings alone, and the definition should be negotiated with the
teacher before an appraisal period begins, and certainly on taking
up a new job. Negotiation with an individual teacher should be
conducted within the context of the general practices and policy
of the school. The statements on these and the job descriptions
of individual teachers should be formally adopted by the governing
body. They should be sufficiently detailed to enable individuals
within the school and outsiders to comprehend the principles on
which the school works, and the direction in which it is moving,

23
Norman Thomas

and they should allow the teacher and others to know the basis
on which appraisal is conducted. They should be reviewed at
appropriate intervals and especially in connection with the appraisal
of the head, whose responsibility it is to see that they are
implemented. The wider ground on which the school definitions
are based should be provided by the LEA which, in its turn, should
draw on a broader, national agreement. If the area and national
definitions were closely defined they would be too limiting on
a school.
A system of appraisal must make allowances for differences
of practice between one appraiser and another by the inclusion
of moderating procedures. There are three main kinds of
difference that need to be minimized. One leads an appraiser
to judge everyone to be a swan—or a goose. A second arises
from bias with regard to individuals. A third stems from
differences in the criteria used or variations in the emphasis
placed upon them. None can be wholly eliminated and so caution
is needed in using an appraisal system as operated at school
level in deciding, without additional checks, whether a teacher
is or is not, for example, fit to remain in teaching, or to be
offered a headship. The appraisal system may usefully provide
some evidence towards making such decisions, but it has to
be remembered that a teacher who is regarded as ineffective
in one school may be more effective in another, and the
management aspect of an appraisal system would be met in part
if teachers were enabled to transfer to schools in which their
talents would be better used.
These considerations strengthen the notion that one should
regard the appraisal system as being concerned with the relationship
between the teacher and the job, and with improving that
relationship, and not as being directed towards grading teachers
against each other. Of course there are extreme cases of people
who are not suited to being teachers, but these should always
be few given the arrangements for entry to the profession. Some
teachers may have become unsuited due to ill health or difficulties
in their lives outside school. Whatever the case, their problems
should have been identified and dealt with before a routine
appraisal system runs its course, even if it is operated yearly or
biennially.
It is assumed that apposite judgements can be made about
teachers’ abilities to lead children to behave in ways regarded
as desirable, to enthuse them, and to provide suitable levels
and kinds of work. These all have relevance to the principal

24
 The Appraisal of Teachers

purpose of appraisal: to improve the education of the children.

Can anything more specific be included? There are considerable
doubts about the wisdom of giving prominence to the bald results
of tests on the children and even of assessments of their work,
whether done by teachers or others, unless account is taken of
the circumstances in which the work is done and the ways it
changes over time. Children who, in an absolute sense, are
achieving well for their age may owe proportionately less to
the school and their teacher than other children whose
achievements are modest or even poor as compared with those
of the population as a whole, as is well known. Yet, plainly,
there is a need to take account of children’s achievements and
progress. A wholly satisfactory way of determining the ‘value-
added’ benefit that children get from attending school is not
known, but for further development the work done in connection
with the ILEA ‘Junior School Project’ (ILEA, 1986) is
commended, in the hope that some such measure might be part
of the evidence used in considering a teacher’s work.

Methods of appraisal

No formal system will entirely displace informal methods of

appraisal. Much of the evidence for the formal system will be
collected informally, but the formal collection of evidence should
not take place only near to the end of an appraisal period. One
cycle in the procedure should include more or less continuous
informal assessment, with discussion in its course, and a number
of more formal occasions, prepared for and sometimes requested
by the appraised. We regard observation of teaching as essential.
Experiments should be carried out to discover what part different
methods of observation might play; the appraiser and appraised
working alongside each other; the appraiser as a neutral observer;
the use of video recording; the use of observation schedules; the
examination of children’s written work; the appraiser taking on
the teaching role; discussion with the appraised of the appraiser’s
notes or completed checklist. Some possible approaches to
classroom observation are discussed in chapter ten.
Plainly, classroom observation is not enough if aspects of the
teacher’s work outside the classroom are not to be included. The
appraiser needs to have sight of the teacher’s working notebooks;
to have some means of judging the appraised’s relations with
colleagues and others who work with or for the children, such

25
Norman Thomas

as the educational psychologist or health visitor; and with the

children’s parents.

The formal interview and the written report

A formal interview towards the end of an appraisal cycle is a

necessary part of the process. It is part of the preparation of
the formal written statement, not the occasion for its transmission.
There does not seem to be a single best form. A variety of forms
should be tried out, and it may always be desirable to permit
some variations, even within one LEA; some suggestions are
made in chapter three. Any written report should be seen by
the appraised who should be able to add his or her own comment.
It may be necessary for the management of the system that the
written report, or more usually part of it, be sent elsewhere
but this should not be an automatic part of the procedure. It
should happen when the action called for by the appraisal is
beyond the control of the appraiser and appraised, for example
where one or preferably both parties take the view that attendance
at a specific course, secondment or promotion is necessary, or
possibly in the course of moderating the system. There may
also be cases where the appraised may wish to call in evidence
what has been written about effectiveness in previous posts.
We stress again that all arrangements for appraisal should be
developmental in form, allowing for and recording change in
the individual and in the school, and that appraisal which
compares the performance of real teachers to that of an ideal
teacher is likely to be unprofitable.

Who should be appraised?

If any teachers are appraised, all should be, including deputies

and heads. Of course, there are some practical difficulties, especially
for teachers who work on supply, but we believe that they should
be included. Arrangement should be made to appraise all who
conduct appraisals, including LEA advisers who do so.

26
 The Appraisal of Teachers

Who should appraise?

There is some indication from Dr Clift’s work at the Open

University that many teachers prefer assessment to be conducted
by the head. They see the head as the person who knows the
context and the school climate, who could take managerial action
as a result of the assessment, and who would be influential in
any applications they made for posts outside or inside the school.
In secondary schools, particularly, they saw the head as more
detached than, say, the head of department. At least one of the
teachers’ associations, the NUT, takes a different view. It stresses
the part that the appraisal process will play in professional
development rather than its part in managing the system, and
argues for appraisal by peers, with nothing being passed on
except by agreement with the appraised. Another possibility
is for appraisal to be carried out by senior members of staff
other than the head. Still another is for the job to be done by
LEA inspectors.
It is believed that the last proposition is impractical so far
as the main body of teachers is concerned, especially given the
need for appraisal over a period. However, it is considered there
are five important contributions that should be made by LEA
advisory services. The first is in discussing with the school the
direction that it should be taking, bearing in mind the limits
of the LEA’s resources. The second is to arbitrate where there
is disagreement between appraised and appraiser (whether or
not the head is the appraiser). The third is in appraising heads.
The fourth is in providing some moderating influence between
schools. The fifth is in the training of appraisers and appraised.
These demands will put great strain on the LEA advisory services
as they are now constituted, and especially so with regard to
primary schools, which account for something like four fifths
of all heads. The idea that ex-heads should appraise heads is
noted but not enthusiastically received. Whoever does the job
should have the right of continuous access to the school and
be conscious of recent pressures and developments, which not
many retired people can be.
It is not easy to see that someone other than the head can act
as the main appraiser in primary schools (with the possible
exception of the relatively few large schools with 20 or more
teachers) if the senior/junior relationship between appraiser and
appraised is adopted. Increasingly, it is unrealistic to expect a
head to have superior expertise in every aspect of the curriculum,

27
Norman Thomas

one or more of which may be important in relation to an individual

teacher, but appraisal is concerned with teachers’ ability to carry
and develop specific roles and with their needs for wider
professional development. The primary school head remains the
person best placed to make a general appraisal of this kind. In
secondary schools it may be that deputy heads and even heads
of department have a role in the appraisal process.
It has been considered whether appraisal might best be between
peers including, possibly, peers from different schools. Such
arrangements, by themselves, would not satisfy all three purposes
of appraisal as here defined, and especially that relating to the
management of the system. Nevertheless, it would be worth
experimenting with appraisal by a combination of head/ peer action,
especially where the peer is from a different school. By the same
argument, the appraisal of heads might be undertaken jointly by
another head and the LEA inspector.
There is clearly room for experiment in ways of combining
the roles of the two contributors and obvious issues are: who
should take the lead, the peer or the superior; should both
appraisers always/ever draw on the same evidence; how should
the peer be selected, e.g. by the appraised or by the senior
appraiser, or by a third party to supplement the curricular
expertise of the head; should all discussion be between the three;
to what extent should the appraisers reach and record their
conclusions independently; should there be one final statement
with room for dissension? The key factor is that those being
appraised should be regarded as having a positive part to play
in the appraisal process. The appraised should also have the
right to require specific evidence to be examined. Indeed, in
advance of the main appraisal interview it is desirable that the
appraised should provide a written statement outlining the main
tasks performed over the period of the appraisal, the appraised’s
own view of his or her performance, and his or her main aims
and training needs for the period ahead.

The resource consequences of an appraisal system

There is no escaping the fact that any appraisal system worth

the name requires resources. Of course, some will come from a
more pointed use of activities that are already being undertaken.
But it is not possible to do everything necessary by a simple
rearrangement of existing work. The first additional requirement

28
 The Appraisal of Teachers

is time (and expenses where external appraisers are used) for

the appraisers to carry out the formal aspects of their work, not
least the recording of observations and discussions. The second,
though it may turn out to be the largest, is time for the appraised
which might require his or her temporary replacement by a supply
teacher. Appraisal is likely to create large demands for in-service
support, not merely for attending a course but also for visiting
other schools and other classes in the appraised’s own school,
and for bringing in specialist advisory help. The link between
appraisal and in-service training will be strengthened by the
operation of Section 50 in the Education Act, 1986. A third demand
may be for material resources necessary to carry out the teaching
ideas that arise from appraisal. Special attention must be given
to the needs of small schools where the head has a substantial
teaching programme, and where there are few teachers to provide
expertise across the curriculum; various arrangements that are
being adopted in clustering small schools, or small schools with
larger schools, may have their advantages in this connection also.
In all kinds of school, time will be required for establishing a
tighter definition of intentions and priorities.
Unless sufficient resources are available to undertake appraisal
properly, including training appraisers and enacting the necessary
consequences of appraisal, any attempt to introduce a system
will lead to frustration. Without adequate resourcing it would
be better not to start. We are aware that ‘sufficient’ and ‘adequate’
are relative terms, not absolutes. The volume of resources needs
to be such that teachers see that appraisal will work in a positive
way to improve their effectiveness as teachers. The imposition
of a system unacceptable to teachers would damage education.
If, however, teachers can see that the schooling will be helped
to become more effective, and that their worth will be better
recognized, then the system of appraisal may be a tool for
improvement, and have an uplifting effect upon the climate and
quality of education in all our schools.

Postscript

Since the 1987 General Election there is the promise of a

substantial Education Bill and some indication of policy matters
that may be included within the Bill. Some of these, depending
on the precise form of their enactment, will have consequences
for the appraisal of teachers. Assuming that a national curriculum

29
Norman Thomas

is formulated and put into operation, it seems inevitable that

the requirements of the curriculum and teachers’ response to
them must be taken into account in any appraisal system. Exactly
how will remain obscure until the nature of the curriculum is
settled.
At the minimum, one must assume that teachers will be expected
to include in their teaching whatever is contained within the
curriculum and be appraised on the extent to which they do.
Nothing that has been said to date leads one to suppose that every
detail of the curriculum will be laid down: some reports have
suggested that the national curriculum will be required to occupy
a proportion of the time available, leaving more to be done outside
it; even in the time that it does occupy, one hopes and supposes
that the detailed subject matter to be studied by children will
be relevant to their lives and locality, and that there will be the
possibility of differentiation between children according to their
aptitudes, abilities and interests; though perhaps within some
defined parameters. The process of appraisal, if these suppositions
are realized, cannot simply be mechanical, but must depend on
some judgement as to whether the teacher’s interpretation of the
national curriculum is appropriate. The establishment of the
curriculum will provide a comparative against which to judge
the teacher’s performance, though it will not make the judgement
simple.
But it is not yet possible to envisage what the curriculum will
contain. It could be that some fairly crude subject headings—
English, mathematics, science, etc.—will provide a structure. Or
it would be possible to use a different framework: to say what
skills, ideas, attitudes it should foster, and which broad topics
should be studied. It might in either case indicate the changes
that should occur as children mature. The second approach was
taken in the DES policy statement, Science 5–16, and would
present one kind of appraisal problem.
Alternatively, the national curriculum might lay out, in as far
as it can be done, some important pathways of learning, marking
critical stages, so that children’s progress can be plotted and
recorded—by means that are for discussion elsewhere. The question
is then raised whether children’s recorded progress with a teacher
can form part of the evidence to be taken into account when
appraisal is undertaken. There are some unresolved difficulties
that should be borne in mind. Some come from the backgrounds
of the children (whether they should or not): disharmonies of
attitudes and approach between home and school prevent some

30
 The Appraisal of Teachers

children from making the progress that others do; children who
come into school with little or no English, or pronounced dialects,
may take longer to get going than others accustomed to the school’s
form of English. All of the factors that influence children’s absolute
levels of achievement, no matter how defined, and including
hereditary as well as social factors, also influence the rates of
children’s progress. The appraiser cannot apply simple mechanical
rules either about levels of achievement or progress and suppose
that justice will certainly be done in the appraisal. Interpretation
and judgement will still be required.
An advantage that may come, if the national curriculum is
well devised, is that teachers and appraisers will be aware of
some of the evidence to be taken into account in the appraisal;
the purposes will be clearer. A danger is that the teacher will
be tempted, from a sense of self-protection, to force-feed children
so that they can regurgitate but have not digested and cannot
use what they are taught. We cannot yet know whether the
advantage will be realized. We can, I think, be satisfied that people
will still have to interpret the evidence about teachers’ performance,
and that it will take time, experience and compassion—for the
teacher as well as for the children.

Notes
An excellent Appraisal: Annotated Bibliography No. 1, compiled by B.S.
Niblett, is available from the National Development Centre for School
Management Training Resource Bank, NDC, 35 Berkeley Square, Bristol,
BS8 1JA.

This chapter was originally produced as a paper as a result of discussion in

the Primary Education Study Group.
An earlier version of this chapter was published in Education, 28 August
1987. We are grateful to the editor of Education for his permission to publish
the material contained in that article.

31
Chapter 3

A Planned Approach to
Staff Appraisal in Schools
Kingsley Bungard

What is appraisal?

Appraisal is a professional system of two-way communication

between a head of school or a head of department and an individual
member of staff. It is a positive means of helping a manager of
staff to develop the potential of his or her teaching and non-teaching
colleagues. In order to maintain a positive approach the manager
concentrates on performance aspects and seeks to help the
appraisee assess:

• How well he or she is performing.

• Whether he or she can improve in any area of their work.
• The actions to improve the appraisee’s performance.

Other issues can be covered in addition to present performance

and these are likely to be the appraisee’s ambitions and
aspirations—his or her potential for taking on more demanding
jobs. Actions to be taken to develop new skills, as well as views
and feelings about the department or school, can also prove to
be useful areas to explore. It is worth pointing out at the beginning
the range of issues to be covered. Care should be taken to avoid
discussion of personal qualities which cannot be rectified. Appraisal
is entirely performance related, leaving the appraisee with a clear
understanding of how he or she is getting on, and reaching an
agreement with the appraiser about the ways and means of
improving performance where necessary.
Appraisal, if regarded in this way, is a powerful motivational
technique. It provides genuine recognition—which all individuals
in the teaching profession need.

32
 A Planned Approach to Staff Appraisal in Schools

The advantages of effective appraisal

Before discussing a system which can be used in schools it is

worth examining the potential advantages of investing time in
introducing appraisal.

Potential advantages for the individual:

• He or she knows where they stand regarding their own

performance.
• He or she knows where they are going in terms of
improvement and development plans.
• He or she gains a greater sense of belonging through realizing
the value of their contribution to the school.

Potential advantages for the appraisee and the school:

• A better understanding of how staff see their jobs and how

satisfied they are.
• The opportunity to plan for improvements in performance.
• The opportunity to plan the best use of ability and potential.
• An insight into the effectiveness of one’s own management
style.

It may be thought that all this can be achieved through daily

contact with staff. Such a judgement would be misleading. The
real benefit of a planned and practical approach to appraisal is
seizing the opportunity to stand back and take stock.

A planned approach

In the next chapter an experienced headteacher will describe the

way in which an appraisal system was introduced into his school.
This chapter makes the assumption that the introduction of
appraisal has been successful. Three stages will be explained:

Method of preparing: • Deciding what should be covered

in terms of structure and content
of interview.
• Preparing for the interview and
helping the member of staff
prepare.

33
Kingsley Bungard

Conducting the interview: • How to carry out a thorough

interview concentrating on the
performance and improvement
needs of staff.
• A description will be given on
the use of interview skills to
ensure the member of staff
makes the major contribution
to the interview.
Follow-up: • Examining the technique of
recording actions for
improvement or development
of the member of staff.
• Methods of putting action
plans into practice.

If the appraisal system is to be truly professional, all three of

the stages outlined above need to be taken seriously. Appraisal
is not just about conducting a good interview, that is only one
third of the process. Both preparation and follow-up are an integral
part of the planned approach. Entering into the appraisal arena
with anything less than a 100 per cent commitment and conviction
will lead to failure. Appraisal is an extremely time consuming
exercise and will bring a huge investment for the future. However,
it could also bring the uncommitted headteacher and the system
of appraisal into disrepute.

Preparing for appraisal

There are two aspects to preparation for appraisal.

The first is the appraisee’s preparation, including organizational
arrangements, as well as deep consideration of the appraisee’s
performance.
The second aspect of appraisal is helping the appraisee to
prepare in a constructive and positive manner that ensures the
interview is performance related. This section sets out to describe
what must be completed by both parties before the appraisal
interview.

34
 A Planned Approach to Staff Appraisal in Schools

Preparation for the appraisal

Firstly, decide a standard structure and content for all appraisal

interviews. It is very important for staff to recognize that everyone
is treated in the same manner. Failure to observe this simple rule
could result in insecurity of staff, who may be left wondering why
they were asked different questions or, worse still, why certain
questions were not asked! So prepare a standard set of questions
for your appraisal. Listed below is a suggested sequence of questions.

• What are the most important areas of the job?

• What are his or her strengths—the things he or she has done
well?
• What are the main problems he or she has encountered?
• Can these problems be avoided in future?
• What are his or her staff training and development needs?
• What is the best way to achieve each improvement?

The above points deal with performance in his or her present

job. If you want to cover future opportunities as well, these are
possible further interview points:

• What abilities, if any, are not being fully used in his or

her present job?
• What new jobs could he or she take on in the coming year?
• Does he or she want to take on more demanding jobs?
• What is the best way to develop each new skill?

Finally, if you also want to check job satisfaction during the

interview, include points like the following:

• What aspects of the job give him or her most satisfaction?

• What things, if any, cause dissatisfaction?

Secondly, it is essential to make detailed arrangements to ensure

the degree of professionalism does not go by unnoticed in the
eyes of school staff. It is therefore recommended that you carry
out the following procedures.

• Set a date, time and place for appraisal interviews. The

beginning of the summer term has a lot of advantages,
but care should be taken to avoid appraisals drifting into
the last two to three weeks of the summer term. Written

35
Kingsley Bungard

notices, along with public announcements of the precise

times, reduces the risk of people forgetting the
appointment. Be mindful of risks, if you choose your
office or study. If there is no option, what arrangements
can be made to avoid interruptions from the telephone or
people knocking on your door?
• Give at least two week’s notice of the interview to each
member of staff.
• Brief him or her on how to prepare. The following six
questions should be set out on paper equally spaced to
allow for written responses:

1. Performance: Consider your performance since the last

appraisal and comment on your most important
achievements. Itemize particular results and successes
which you influenced.
2. Consider your performance since the last appraisal—
comment on your disappointments with respect to your
own responsibilities.
3. Obstacles: What factors outside your control hindered
you in achieving a better performance?
4. Training and new experiences last year.
(a) What training or new planned experiences did you
undergo last year?
(b) In what ways have they helped?
5. Increased skill or knowledge: What part of your present
job could benefit if you received additional training or
new planned experiences?
6. List of training needs: As a result of completing the
whole form, list the areas of training or planned
experiences you need in order to further develop your
professional expertise.

It is important to explain to each member of staff the value of

giving time to complete this document. Draw attention to the fact
that it is confidential and a copy of the responses need to be returned
at least two days before the interview. This gives the appraiser
the opportunity to consider the appraisee’s points of view.

The appraiser’s preparation

Before the interview, go through each of the questions asked of

36
 A Planned Approach to Staff Appraisal in Schools

the appraisee. Try to recall the key areas of performance from

your point of view. Very often the member of staff misses some
key areas of their year’s work, especially those which have been
successful. This is one opportunity to ensure you take complete
stock of each person’s performance. The focus for appraisal is
improvement of performance and development needs. It is therefore
important to concentrate on these issues and not the negative aspects
of a member of staff’s contribution to the school. For example,
there is little value in telling staff about their poor attitude, lack
of enthusiasm and cooperation. It is far better to get their agreement
to achieving specified results, in a given time. This is far more
positive and provides a better basis for appraisal the following
year, when agreed targets from the year before can be analysed.
Only then can comments on enthusiasm, and attitude be pointed
out as a contributing factor to their success or failure to reach targets.
Provisionally, in the appraiser’s preparation, decide any realistic
improvement or development aims. These targets may not be the
finally agreed targets, but may well be in the areas that you feel
are important to the school. Typical target areas to be considered
are listed as follows:

• New projects, e.g. refurbishment of library,

introduction of computers,
new procedures for sports day.
new form of record keeping.
• Change of teaching post in the school.
• Developing a new system for timetabling.
• New curriculum initiatives.
• Examination results or test performances.

Setting targets is a skill which will not be dealt with in this chapter.
Suffice to say, make them measurable, and put deadlines on the
completion or achievement of the target. For example, to ensure
that the library is re-arranged as discussed with heads of departments,
the project is set to be completed by the end of spring term.
The final part of your preparation is to try and anticipate any
problems that might arise during the interview. For example, if
there is very severe criticism of school procedures. Or equally
as challenging, if there is a lack of recognition that a job has
been carried out well. The message here is to plan beforehand
how you are going to handle them.
In summary, there are four areas on which the appraiser should
concentrate before the interview:

37
Kingsley Bungard

• Read carefully through the appraisee’s responses and decide

the areas you agree with or where there are gaps.
• Concentrate on things that have gone well and improvement
needs.
• Think of realistic improvement or development targets for
next year.
• Think about ways in which you could help or support the
member of staff to achieve their targets.

Asking your member of staff to prepare is an important stage

in appraisal. You are seeking to gain commitment, so that you
both treat the appraisal as a genuine opportunity for improvement.
Share the initiative with your staff.

Conducting the interview

It has already been said that it is worth making a conscious decision

to use a room where the risk of disturbance is low. It also important
to consider the arrangement of the seating. Use upright chairs
and a table where both people can sit together. Although the
appraisal interview should be conducted informally, it must still
be business-like. Relaxing in comfortable chairs with a coffee
table between you is unlikely to produce the sense of importance
and urgency of the situation. Finally, as a prelude to the conduct
of the interview, leave 2 to 3 minutes to have your paperwork
ready, the table and chairs in the right position, so that you are
ready to welcome your member of staff to this important event.
The sequence of the interview is based on two clear principles.
Firstly, ask the appraisee to comment on each issue, then comment
in response and add to the points raised. Secondly, move from strength
to weaknesses and finish on actions to improve or develop. This
allows the interview to end on a positive note. The following is a
suggested structure: Leave 2–3 minutes to look through your notes.

Approximate timing
1. Outline the interview plan. 1 minute
2. Ask appraisee to describe his or her
strengths—things achieved. 7 minutes
3. Acknowledge good work and contribution to
the school. 7 minutes

38
 A Planned Approach to Staff Appraisal in Schools

4. Ask appraisee what problems/obstacles have

made his/her job more difficult. 7 minutes
5. Agree ways to eliminate problems/obstacles. 7 minutes
6. Ask what aspects of work need improving. 7 minutes
7. Tell staff what aspects of their work need
improving. 5 minutes
8. Agree improvement aims for the coming
years. 10 minutes
9. Jointly decide actions needed to achieve
improvement aims. 10 minutes

60 minutes

Leave 5 minutes before seeing anyone else to ensure you have

noted the agreements or actions. During the interview the
appraiser’s interview skills are of paramount importance. The
following are designed to be hints and tips to ensure the appraiser
conducts a professional appraisal interview.

Interviewing skills
There are four basic skills in conducting an appraisal interview:

Establishing trust.
Listening accurately.
Reflecting feelings.
Questioning.

Establishing trust
A person will only talk to you frankly about his or her
improvements if he or she wants to. The following are aimed at
helping your own attitude during the interview or discussion,
to encourage him or her to open up by establishing trust:

• Take a genuine interest in the other person.

• Show concern to have issues resolved and agreements
reached.
• Try to understand, and accept his or her views and
feelings.
• Don’t criticize, or try to put him or her down.
• Don’t pressurize him or her or force the pace.

39
Kingsley Bungard

Listening
‘Being a good listener’ is a real skill. It is more than being silent—
you have to show, in the way that you listen, that you understand
what the other person says, without necessarily expressing
agreement or disagreement. Listening well requires that you:

• Don’t interrupt. Let the other person do the talking.

• Concentrate and hear what he or she says (rather than
what you want to hear).
• Assess the underlying feelings, behind what he or she
actually says. (How does he feel about it? Does he feel
strongly about it? Does he really mean what he is saying?)
• Look at him or her while he or she is speaking. This
shows that you are listening.
• Encourage him or her to carry on talking if you want
further explanation. You can do this with very few
words—a nod, a noise of agreement, or a short phrase
like ‘Why?’ or ‘Tell me more’.
• Don’t rush in to fill pauses and be patient.

Reflecting feelings
The good appraiser acts as a ‘mirror’ to help the other person
to stand back and examine the improvements critically and calmly.
At intervals during the interview it is a good idea to state the
feeling and meaning behind what is being said to you rather than
the facts themselves. These are ways to do it, to keep the interview
moving positively:

• Summarize feelings and meanings in your own words, as

statements rather than questions.
• Reflect his or her actual feelings. Don’t try to lead or
interpret.
• Keep it brief, reflecting the last feelings expressed, not
the whole interview.
• Don’t try to catch out the other person or pin him or her
down by referring to inconsistencies or apparent
inaccuracies.
• Reflect constructive ideas or decisions only when the
other person is calm and confident enough to act on
them. Initially you are acting as a safety valve, to let the
other person give vent to feelings.

40
 A Planned Approach to Staff Appraisal in Schools

Questioning
If the other person is not very forthcoming you can ask questions,
to start him or her talking. The types of question you ask are
important—they must encourage him or her to open up, but they
must not be threatening in any way. Follow these suggestions:

• Ask open questions that require explanatory answers.

• Avoid closed questions that require yes or no answers
only. The affect may be to close the issue down rather
than open it up.
• Use general ‘encouraging’ statements or questions (‘Tell
me more’, ‘Can you add to that?’, ‘Can you give me an
example?’).
• Avoid questions that imply criticisms or set a trap.
• Avoid forcing questions that push the other person
towards a decision or action.

In summary, the appraiser is attempting to achieve maximum

participation. Here are seven points to adhere to:

1. Work through your interview plan in sequence and note

conclusions or agreements reached between you and your
member of staff.
2. Begin each interview stage by asking the views of your
member of staff. Only come in with your views
afterwards— to add to what has been said or introduce a
forgotten point.
3. At the start of the interview, concentrate on important
areas of the job and the teacher’s strengths. Readily
acknowledge good work achieved—it is important to
show that you appreciate the value of their contribution.
Deal with improvement needs only after you have
covered strengths.
4. Give the teacher the opportunity to identify improvement
needs before giving your own views.
5. If the member of staff has a real weakness and
improvement needs and fails to identify them, do not
hesitate to say what they are, firmly and clearly. But
make the criticism clear and crisp—moving quickly on to
ways in which improvement can be achieved through
positive action.
6. Do not be afraid to recognize criticism of yourself or the

41
Kingsley Bungard

school. Quickly turn to ways of avoiding such points

arising again.
7. End the interview on a strong positive note, agreeing
clear improvement or development aims for the months
ahead and actions to achieve the aims. Above all, try to
achieve maximum participation.

Using this approach to conducting the interview makes note-taking

very much easier. Instead of several pages of essay style manuscript
an action plan is really all that is necessary.

List of actions to be completed by

This approach to note-taking should be open-style, either photocopied

or written out by the appraisee, so that both the appraisee and appraiser
have copies. There is no point in making comments about a person
if they themselves have not seen what has been written. Equally, it
is important to write the comments in action terms, focusing on
what is to be done to remedy the situation or to develop new skills.
Note-taking in this format makes follow-up so much easier, because
appraisal does not end with the interview.

Follow-up

Formal appraisal should take place once a year. The agreed actions
noted down from the previous year will be a useful basis for
preparation and the initial review of the year’s performance in
next year’s appraisal interview. However, it is too long to wait
for many of the likely actions agreed between the head and the
member of staff. The appraiser has a managerial responsibility
to help staff satisfy the needs and check whether the agreements
reached at the appraisal interview have been carried out. When
dates have been put down against actions it makes the follow-up
so much easier. Providing the head has noted the dates in his own
diary, brief follow-up meetings are so much easier to handle.
There are three possible levels of action you may decide to
take in order to improve or develop a member of staff’s needs.

Briefing
For the simplest needs it may be enough to explain and discuss

42
 A Planned Approach to Staff Appraisal in Schools

what he or she should do to improve. But even with the simple

needs, follow up to check that he or she has taken the necessary
action. For example, if a teacher is often late in doing the register,
you may simply emphasize the importance of getting it done on
time, and direct him or her to take immediate steps to improve.

Coaching
More complex needs are best handled by coaching. Decide the
aim and draw up an action plan—things he or she can do, and
ways you can help, to achieve the aim. If the plan is going to
take some time, decide time targets against each action. Follow
up to check progress against the plan. For example, a young teacher
is weak at preparing her work priorities and using her time
effectively. You can draw up an action plan:

• Ask her to keep an activity log for a week (recording her

lesson plans).
• Analyse the log entries with her, examining how she did
her planning.
• Ask her to prepare a simple daily plan each day.
• Review what she does against her plan, initially on a daily
basis.
• Continue to review her use of time at less frequent intervals.

Formal training
If a member of staff has to overcome a major weakness, or if
you want her to prepare for a job that is entirely new to her, it
may be best if she attends an outside course. Do not assume that
this will, in itself, satisfy the need. Follow up, to help her apply
what she has learned in her job. For example, if you want to
develop a member of staff to take on a staff development role,
you may decide to send her on an appropriate course. This would
be a first step in learning and applying managerial skills.
In this chapter the author has described a practical and planned
model for those who wish to introduce appraisal to their school.
The approach is based on practical experience. In the next chapter
a headteacher describes how he interpreted this approach in practice
and introduces some ideas that will help to ensure the planned
approach to appraisal really works.

43
Chapter 4

Practical Appraisal in
Primary Schools
C.D.M.Rhodes

Introduction

An examination of the introduction of an appraisal system into

my school must be seen against the background of the nature
of the school itself, the self-appraisal and review strategies which
already existed, and my management training.
The events to be described took place in the summer of 1985.
At that time the school was a three-form entry 8–12 middle school,
serving the south eastern corner of a small Midlands town. Work
was class based, with subject coordinators time-tabled to permit
some cooperative teaching. Non-class based staff were responsible
for French, Music and CDT. Science was taught by those with a
particular interest in the subject. Additional staffing was deployed
to support those children whose first language was other than
English, and provision was made for pupils with special educational
needs. Twenty teachers worked in the school, five of whom were
part time.
A university based management course led me to see appraisal
as a positive and valuable way in which to enhance the professional
development strategies already employed in the school. I saw
appraisal as a professionally structured process through which
teacher and head could review the former’s work together, and
plan for an effective future. It was to be an opportunity for both
to take stock, for praise to be given, and plans made in order to
support any aspect of the teacher’s work which might need to
be enhanced. It would provide a regular opportunity to review
the effectiveness of in-service work and to establish priorities
for the future. This chapter will discuss a pilot scheme run in

44
 Practical Appraisal in Primary Schools

the school in order to test the appraisal methodology suggested

on the management course.

Self-appraisal through ‘forecast’ review

The staff were already used to a form of self-appraisal. At the

beginning of each term every member of staff is asked to prepare
a forecast of the work they hope to cover during the term, and
the organizational strategies they intend to employ in order to achieve
them. As an example, a third-year teacher might write as follows
about the Maths work she hoped to achieve with her children:
‘All the class will be working from the Scottish Primary Maths
Group materials.
‘Alan and Mary should finish Stage 4 by half term, and will
be put onto problem solving cards. At the moment they are using
the DART computer program, and are learning how to draw various
designs on the computer using different programming techniques.
‘The other Stage 4 group are working well and should finish
the book next term. I take each topic and work the group together
on that for approximately two weeks.
‘The first Stage 3 group should have completed this book by
half term, and will then start on Stage 4. There should be no
problems here.
‘The second Stage 3 group. A very slow working group of 5
children all with difficulties in most topics…’ etc., etc.
Staff would submit these forecasts by the end of the second
week of term. The forecast forms the basis of a discussion with
me, and any revisions would be agreed by both the teacher and
myself. The agreed alterations were usually of a minor nature.
In the example given above, the revision might see a more specific
reference to the actual materials the first group are going to use,
a comment on marking strategies, or detail about the organization
of practical activities.
The final version was then typed up by the school secretary,
and one copy returned to the teacher as the agreed organizational
and curriculum targets for the term.
Teachers undertaking extra responsibilities, either voluntarily,
or as part of a scale post, were asked to submit their ‘post’ aims
in a similar manner.
The postholder for AVA, for example, might write: ‘As agreed,
I will be continuing to order and collate the teacher’s notes for
the TV programmes we use. I hope that Mrs Chalmers, our new

45
C.D.M.Rhodes

classroom helper, will be able to relieve me of the task of making

the daily video recordings. She has a video of her own and… I
am looking forward to the course on video cameras, and hope
to borrow one after half term. I would like to run a film making
club, and will be working with Dawn who wants to make a
permanent record of the school concert. I will be running a mini-
course for staff on use of the heat copier for the next three hymn
practices…’
Two weeks before the end of term, a copy of the forecast is
returned to the teacher. This is used as a ‘scribble’ document,
and is annotated by the class teacher in the light of what really
happened. This self-appraisal is very useful in that it allows the
class teacher to make a professional review of the past term.
Successes can be recorded, alterations dictated by expediency
can be noted, disappointments mentioned. The exercise is
professional and non-threatening. It serves as the start point for
an informal review of the term with the headteacher. Praise can
be given, and professional discussion can take place about how
the work has gone. Their joint conclusions and comments provide
the basis for the following term’s forecast, and give indications
for future in-service work.
Typical comments made about language work might read:
‘Writing—story book for younger children. This project is not
finished but should have been completed early next term. I am
pleased with the way the children have made genuine efforts to
find out which type of story six-year-olds enjoy and have thought
very carefully about vocabulary and presentation… I have
continued with the weekly spelling lists. For all their faults, they
seem a relatively painless way of dealing with phonic and spelling
rules, vocabulary etc… I was not at all happy about the decision
to change our policy on library books. I realize that I was in a
minority at the staff meeting, but I would like an opportunity
to raise the subject again. I would like to chat to you informally
about this…’
The following term’s forecast would follow naturally on the
previous one. In consequence, the actual amount of revision at
the beginning of each term was usually small, if necessary at
all. End of term reviews, however, were usually very detailed
and the basis for fruitful professional discussion. Hence it can
be seen that even before the launch of the appraisal project, there
was a solid foundation of professional mutual review.

46
 Practical Appraisal in Primary Schools

Self-appraisal by the children

The older children, too, were being introduced to the idea of
self-appraisal. It is my custom to sit down with each individual
child, hopefully once a term, to hear them read, and talk through
their work and progress. This takes place within the classroom
during normal lessons. I have a simple form of record card for
each child. The older children are encouraged to self-evaluate
their work and progress, and agree the comments to be put on
the card. Targets can be set to be met by the next review. I found
the children to be very honest in their self-evaluation. It is
interesting to note that the better children tended to be self-
depreciating, and that most would start the self-evaluating process
by using criteria or standards which they thought I would require
rather than their own. Therefore, the most common start point
would be a comment about neatness, or when asked to choose
a piece of work of which they were really proud, they would
choose a page of ticks. I therefore need to probe a little more
to indicate what I really wanted and establish criteria.
Sometimes the classteacher would sit in on the review, and
this was even more productive. I do not think that the children
have felt over-powered. We usually sit three to the table, with
the classwork and record card before us. A three-way discussion
takes place, with references back to previous comments on the
card and to the children’s own work. I also use this card as a
basis for discussion with parents, and am perfectly happy to let
them read the comments on it. You can see from the children’s
faces that they are concerned about what is written about them,
and some ask what happens to the card. There is a sense of
professional acceptance when they have agreed to the comment,
even if it is critical, so long as it is fair, and support strategies
have been discussed for the future. There are some important
lessons for adult appraisal here, too.
There is no doubt that the exercise requires a lot of time, but
I am convinced of its value. It is obviously valuable to the children
themselves, who now enjoy the process and enter into the
discussions positively. Clearly, the younger children need guidance
as the process will be very new to them. It also gives me an
invaluable strategy whereby I can be in classrooms naturally for
long periods without the teachers feeling uneasy. It gives both
myself and the classteacher opportunities to discuss individual
children and share pleasure over progress, disappointment over
under-achievement or concern over disadvantage.

47
C.D.M.Rhodes

The concept of formal appraisal

To sum up the situation at Easter 1985:

(a) The staff were used to the concept of self-appraisal, and

professional development based on past experience and
existing practice is well established.
(b) Staff were used to seeing the headteacher in the working
classroom, evaluating and discussing work with the children,
and afterwards with the teacher. Implicit in this is an informal
but structured evaluation of the teacher’s work with that
group of children.

In April 1985 I was seconded as Course Tutor on a 20-day DES

funded management course for experienced headteachers of
primary schools. It was based in a university department of
education. The lecturers came from education, industry and from
the university department itself. Course members came from five
LEAs. One of the main elements in the course was an examination
of ‘management processes’. This was led by a management
consultant with a wide experience of both educational and
industrial/commercial management practice. Staff appraisal was
one of his topics, and the day we spent examining the issues
involved, he gave me considerable food for thought. I saw that
the model he was suggesting would be a natural extension to
the work I was already undertaking in school, albeit in a more
structured and formalized way.
Understandably, my staff were expecting me to bring ideas
back from the course, and I decided that formal appraisal might
be a suitable topic.
I started by examining the actual agenda for the appraisal
interview. Readers will recall from the previous chapter in this
book that the interview is formed around responses made to a
number of previously agreed questions. I decided to modify those
suggested on the course so that they read as follows:

(a) Consider your work during this school year, and comment
on your most important achievements. Itemize any particular
results and successes you have influenced.
(b) Consider your work during this school year. Comment on
your disappointments with respect to your own
responsibilities.

48
 Practical Appraisal in Primary Schools

(c) What factors outside your control hindered your achieving

a better performance?
(d) What in-service training have you received during the past
twelve months? In what way has it helped?
(e) What part of your present job could benefit if you received
additional training?

My next step was to discuss the whole concept of appraisal,

and the proposed questions, with my deputy, and the representative
of the professional association to which the majority of the staff
belonged. The latter was also the teacher-governor. He did not
see any problems. Although this was a time of industrial action,
the staff had already requested a full staff meeting to discuss
some urgent issues, and it was agreed that appraisal be included
on the agenda.
I had decided on one major change from the model suggested
on the course. The lecturer had suggested that once the project
had been discussed and agreed at the launch staff meeting, then
copies should be distributed with sufficient space between questions
to allow staff room to write their responses. The papers would
then be returned to the head several days before the appraisal
interview. This would allow the head to have time to consider
the teacher’s points before their meeting. I understood the logic
of this arrangement, but felt that the process might seem too formal
or threatening, and therefore better omitted at this stage.
Experience was to show that there were indeed points raised
which I was not expecting. Foreknowledge of these would have
been both to my advantage, and to the teacher’s, as I would have
had time to prepare my thoughts on the issue concerned. With
hindsight, I would suggest that the matter is aired at the initial
staff meeting, and a consensus position reached. As agreed, I raised
the whole issue of appraisal at the staff meeting, and outlined the
thinking behind the project. I circulated the questions, and asked
for volunteers to carry out a pilot scheme. I stressed the theme
of professional development, that it was a review and a look forward,
and was totally unconnected with salary. During the ensuing
discussion, it became clear that several colleagues did indeed find
the concept threatening, and inevitably linked it with a national
programme of monitoring. Others supported the idea, and argued
that it was better to test and refine one’s own scheme, than have
an unsatisfactory one imposed by an external body.
Two weeks passed, and we were within a fortnight of the end
of the summer term. No-one had come forward for the pilot scheme.

49
C.D.M.Rhodes

A little alarming. Then the colleague who had already discussed

the project with me in his capacity as union representative, came
forward as the first volunteer. In order to hold the interview under
the best possible conditions, I arranged for his class to be covered
by another teacher. It was clearly important to place a high status
on the discussion, and to hold it in the best possible circumstances.
Trying to cram a professional dialogue into lunchtime when one
might be interrupted, or after school when both parties were tired,
would be clearly unproductive.
This does raise serious resource implications. I was able to
arrange cover among colleagues for the pilot scheme, but this
should not be the regular pattern. Most primary schools just do
not have ‘floating’ teachers, and even if they do, they were
appointed for tasks other than covering for appraisal interviews.
However, on this occasion, the necessary cover arrangements had
been agreed with staff, and I was able to fix the first appointment
for eleven o’clock, after morning break, and requested that my
secretary kept callers and interruptions at bay.

The framework for the appraisal interview

The actual setting, too, required careful planning. Primary

headteachers’ rooms or offices are usually small, and only permit
a limited number of permutations of furniture. Several basic
principles obviously apply when deciding the setting for the
appraisal interview. It should be non-threatening, yet professional.
Informal, yet businesslike. The traditional large desk, defended
by its battlements of telephone, pen stand and in-trays, can be
very defensive, especially if the visitor is expected to sit on the
other side, and on a lower chair! The opposite scenario of two
easy chairs can also present problems if the meeting is going to
require writing and on looking at a number of sheets of paper.
You could finish up with complete informality—on your knees,
side by side on the floor.
My own room permits two seating situations. In the first
‘working’ position, the desk is against the wall, and I sit across
a corner to my visitor. Both of us have a clear space for papers.
The second position is the informal easy chair solution, with a
coffee table in between. I seldom offer refreshment on these
occasions, because one’s first question always seems to coincide
with the visitor’s first sip, and he is placed in the embarrassing
position of deciding either to abandon the drink in order to answer,

50
 Practical Appraisal in Primary Schools

or keep you waiting. Confident guests use the pause for tea as
a thinking strategy.
I decided to hold the appraisal interviews in the informal setting,
but suggested to the staff that they bring their notes and something
firm to write on. This proved to be a perfectly satisfactory
arrangement. Having agreed an agenda of six question areas, as
detailed earlier in the chapter, and determined time and situation,
the scene was set for the first appraisal interview. The content
of that interview, and those that followed, must, of course, remain
confidential to those who took part. However, some general
organizational points can be mentioned and reference made to
a hypothetical appraisal interview.
The average length of an interview or discussion was 40 minutes.
I have already indicated the implications this has for the staffing
resource in a school. There is a clear need for appraisal schemes
to be backed financially, in order to fund supply staff to cover
colleagues involved in the appraisal process. During my pilot
scheme I was able to conduct seven appraisal interviews during
the space of ten working days. This presented considerable
organizational difficulties in terms of staffing and time, but I
was, and am, convinced that if appraisal is to be seen as a part
of a teacher’s professional development, it must be conducted
and resourced in a professional manner.
It became very clear during the interviews that the discussion
had benefitted from careful preparation on both sides. All my
colleagues had thought carefully about their responses to the
questions. Many chose to work quite closely from notes. Several
had discussed their responses with colleagues or members of their
families. It was clear, too, that despite the informal termly
discussions described earlier in the chapter, colleagues welcomed
the chance to have a formal opportunity to discuss and review
their work in the school.
It was also clear that it was important to have some form of
agreed note of what had been decided during the interview. It
is all too easy to leave a meeting with an incorrect impression
of what has been decided. An appraisal interview needs to be
minuted by the headteacher as he or she proceeds. For example,
he might say: ‘I’ll make a note of that. We agree that you need
more support for the slow learning children in your class… We
agree that I will talk to the adviser to see if there is any chance
of some in-service training in… We agree that you will…’
At the end of the interview the head must sum up the points
agreed: ‘Right, let’s see what we’ve agreed. I will… You will

51
C.D.M.Rhodes

…Have I got it correct? Good, I’ll get these notes typed up, and
give you a copy.’ The notes will, of course, be an important element
in the next appraisal meeting. Were targets achieved, goals reached?
In practice, I found that the last two of my questions, those
dealing with in-service training, needed far less time for discussion.
The first three questions usually took half an hour to cover, and
the last two, ten minutes between them. I already knew what
courses staff had attended, and what they had thought about them.
The real discussion was about future in-service work, both school
based and county based.

The content of the appraisal interview

I have already stated that the detailed content of the interviews

held in my school must remain confidential. However, some further
general points can be made through the medium of extracts from
an imaginary interview.
In this fictional interview, we meet Jaswinder Gill, aged 26.
She has been a teacher at Rosemary Lane Primary School for
two years, both of which she has spent in a cooperative teaching
situation in the reception class. The other teacher in the team,
Ann Butler, always takes the lead in decision making and planning.
There are many Asian children in the school, and Jaswinder spends
quite a lot of her time working with the children in her class
whose understanding of English is limited.

HT: Come in Jaswinder, and sit over here… Is that all right for
you?
JG: Yes, thank you.
(Getting the ice-breaker over efficiently, needs careful thought.
You don’t want to open up too wide a non-agenda subject. Time
is too precious, and this is to be a professional interview.)
HT: I’d like to concentrate on the questions we discussed and
agreed at the staff meeting. I’m pleased to see that you’ve brought
your notes. I have too.
(It is important to say this. Jaswinder may need to be reassured
that it is in order for her to refer to her notes during the course
of the interview, and to know that you are prepared yourself,
and will be using your notes.)

52
 Practical Appraisal in Primary Schools

HT: Let’s start by thinking back over the last twelve months.
What particular successes have there been?
JG: I’m very pleased with the progress Amandeep’s made. She
knew very little English when she started school, and now she
chatters away all the time…and I was also very pleased with
the art work that came out of the visit to the fire station.
This was a suprise to the headteacher. He had not forgotten about
the project, but had not thought it that good. It is important to
pick this point up.)
HT: I remember that project. Tell me more about what pleased
you.
(Just as there were things which Jaswinder had seen as successes
but the head had not, so there were things he had seen during
the year that were certainly worthy of mention, but Jaswinder
had not seen them as being especially successful.)
HT: …and don’t forget the work the children did in capacity.
That produced some excellent results.
JG: Did you really think so?
HT: Certainly. The children were fascinated. Several parents
commented on it to me. A great deal of excellent mathematical
language was going on…
(It is important for the head to try and keep a strict timetable
for the interview, otherwise later topics will become too rushed.
If, after ten minutes, they are still on question one, he should
seek to move things along.)
HT: Let’s move on to the next question. Have there been any
disappointments during the year?
JG: Not really, apart from the fact that I still don’t have my
own class. It’s been two years now. It’s not that I don’t like
Mrs Butler, I do, and I’ve learned a lot from her, but I do
want my own class in September. I think that people see me
as some sort of superior classroom helper. I’m not. I’m a fully
qualified teacher, but—just because I can speak Panjabi, I have
to stay …
(Most teachers have several key issues they want to make sure
are raised during the interview. Jaswinder is determined to make
her most important point now. The emotional temperature has
gone up. Her point is valid, but the head has had to deploy his

53
C.D.M.Rhodes

staff in order to meet the needs of the children. He cannot ignore

Jaswinder’s plea, nor can he allow the interview to be side tracked
too much from the agreed agenda.)
HT: I know how strongly you feel about this, and I do see your
point, and I know Mrs Butler does too. Let me make a suggestion.
I will ask the multi-cultural adviser if there is any way he can
get some more funding to employ a part-time teacher to look
after the E2L side of things. Talk it through with Mrs Butler,
and write out a list of exactly what and when you have to work
specifically with the non-English speaking children. If you can
do that by the end of next week we can rough out some form
of job description. Can you make 12.30 next Friday?
(It is important for the head to set an exact timetable, with
deadlines, for both himself and Jaswinder. People work to
deadlines. Vague statements about future actions tend to get lost.)
(The head must now get back to the agenda.)
HT: But thinking back over the past few months, were there any
other matters? …We did discuss the behaviour problem you were
having with Michael Jones. Have things improved at all? …
(The head will have failed professionally if he has waited until
the appraisal interview before mentioning something in Jaswinder’s
work which he felt could be improved. There should have been
discussion when the problem was first noticed. Now is the time
to review progress.)
I’d like to mention pre-reading skills again. I still feel that you
are… Did you see the notice about a course? …
(In-service comes later on the agenda, but it would be wrong
to ignore this opportunity to suggest professional support.)
JG: Yes, I’d like that. I suppose if I really understood what I
was trying to achieve…
(Time to move on in the agenda.)
HT: Now, were there any factors outside your control which
stopped you achieving what you wanted?
JG: Yes. We could definitely do with some more large Lego. Is
there any chance of any money?
HT: I think so…

54
 Practical Appraisal in Primary Schools

(Later in the interview, the head sums up, and ends on a positive
note)
HT: Before we finish, let me read over my notes. We’ve agreed
to meet next Friday to discuss… We are going to check the courses
on early reading skills… You are going to give me an order for…
Well, thank you very much, Jaswinder. I’ve enjoyed our talk.
I feel that we have covered some very important points. And,
well done again about Amandeep. You’ve done something very
special for her.

The project reviewed

I have already indicated that the first interview in my own school

was with the teacher-governor union representative. Shortly
afterwards five other colleagues came forward to join the scheme,
while others indicated that they would be happy to take part early
in the following term. Two members of staff were due to complete
a special one year project in the November, and suggested that
this would be an appropriate time to review their work. I was
very pleased with the ways the interviews went, especially when
a colleague who had expressed reservations at the staff meeting
came forward, and we both felt that the resultant interview was
very productive.
During the summer holidays, external events overtook us. For
reasons unconnected with our own pilot scheme, one of the main
professional associations decided to ban all participation by its
members in appraisal schemes being tried in the county. I could
not proceed with some colleagues, and discontinue with others,
and so I put our scheme into abeyance.
This was a useful period, as it allowed us time to reflect and
refine what had already happened. Several colleagues from outside
the school, for example, had raised the question of a moderator.
A weakness of schemes like ours is the possibility of a personality
clash, or difference of educational philosophy, between the
participants, resulting in an unfair appraisal. If ‘B’ is appraising
‘C’, should not ‘C’ have the right of appeal to ‘A’? And should
not ‘A’ be overseeing ‘B’ anyway?
Who was to be the moderator for a primary school? The only
clear candidate would be the pastoral adviser, but however good

55
C.D.M.Rhodes

that person may be, do they have the degree of knowledge of

the personalities and internal dynamics of each of their schools
to form a fair judgment? The only way such knowledge can be
gained is by a series of extended visits to schools. This has resource
implications, and threatens other aspects of their professional
work. However, I understand that some counties are working in
this way, and their results will be interesting to see. The adviser,
presumably, would have a role to play in headteacher appraisal!
A fascinating topic in its own right.

The major lessons learned

I had learned some important lessons during the pilot scheme:

1. The planning stage must involve, the staff as a whole. Unless
they see appraisal as professionally desirable, they will not support
it, and it would be better to abandon the whole thing.
2. The questions, or agenda, for the appraisal interview, must
be understood and accepted by all those taking part.
3. Careful preparation, by both parties, before the interview, is
essential to its success.
4. The time allotted for the interview should be one hour, and
guaranteed free from interruptions. It should be at a time of day
when both parties feel fresh.
5. The interview should be conducted in an unthreatening
atmosphere, be seen as a mutual review and planning session
concerned with the professional development of the teacher
concerned.
6. Appraisal needs adequate financial resources to provide supply
cover for those taking part, and training for all those proposing
to take part in appraisal schemes, before they are launched in
individual schools.
7. Appraisal is unconnected with salary.
8. The appraisal interview should not be the first time that a teacher
learns that the head feels they are under-performing, or that their
work deserves special praise.
9. It must be done well, or not at all.

56
 Practical Appraisal in Primary Schools

The way forward

In the two years since the events described in this chapter, appraisal
schemes and the whole concept of appraisal, have been much
in the educational news. The professional associations have been
conscious of the need to protect their members from ill-conceived
or inadequately resourced schemes. However, in several parts
of the country, there have been significant moves towards agreeing
professionally acceptable procedures.
I think that this enforced waiting period has been to the benefit
of appraisal, especially when one sees it in its essential context
of staff and school development. We have also seen the introduction
of radically new ideas for school based in-service work. Two
years ago, I would not have believed that we would come so
soon to financially resourced whole-school INSET, or five INSET
days a year as part of a teacher’s contract.
The new opportunities for professional development afforded
by whole-school INSET and contracted INSET days, means that
staff have time to review and assess, not only the needs of the
school, but of themselves as well.
It is here that appraisal will come properly into its own. Not
as a strategy to tease out the weak and reward the good, not as
an annual patronizing pat on the head or formalized mark out
of ten, but as an integral part of the school’s system of review
and assessment of its performance. It will identify good practice,
and methods of spreading that good practice wider. It will identify
weaknesses, and link into the new opportunities for staff
professional training and development in order to strengthen
colleagues’ work.
A good appraisal scheme will be one that is developed by the
staff themselves, because they see it as an essential element in
the development of the school. It will be non-threatening. It will
be professionally organized and resourced. All the participants
will be trained for appraisal, and will support its aims. It will
afford opportunities of mutual review and team planning.
Finally, ‘Appraisal’ will lose its capital A in the minds of
teachers, and be seen as just one of a number of professional
strategies found in a school in order to enhance the teachers’
work with their children.

57
Chapter 5

The Introduction of Staff

Appraisal into Schools
Francis Arnold

‘Let no man give advice to others, that has not first given
good counsel to himself
Seneca

‘He that won’t be counselled can’t be helped’

Benjamin Franklin

Background

For a non-teacher, the opportunity of introducing change into

schools is a rare one. During 1985/86 and January and February
of this year (1987), I was privileged to work with three groups
of teachers in developing appraisal processes for their respective
schools. One was very conscious of the fact that the time of these
activities was a difficult one for teachers. In 1985 and 1986 the
dispute with Government was at its height, and there was still a
patina of concern and resentment among teachers earlier this year
which could colour receptivity and cooperation. With the very
area of proposed change linking directly to some of the issues
of the dispute, it was therefore heartening to receive such high
levels of support and cooperation which produced workable and
acceptable appraisal processes.
The background was research; it was—and still is—the writer’s
contention that appraisal should be seen as positive and forward-
looking and that its benefits are far-reaching not only to the
individual participant, but the organization. There was, however,

58
 The Introduction of Staff Appraisal into Schools

Figure 5.1 The training process

a personal concern. With forty years’ experience of appraising

or being appraised, I wanted to see if military and industrial
approaches were transferable. One accepted the need for adaptation
in process but not in principle, and hoped that the benefits of
appraisal would be accepted. This concern generated a question
which had not been articulated and indeed had not even surfaced
at the commencement of the research. There was a gradual
awareness which developed into this query:
‘Was one’s commitment to appraisal based on many years’
acceptance of a normative procedure which had proved successful,
or was there a genuine personal belief in the principles of appraisal
as being managerially, behaviourally and organizationally
desirable?’
The question initially produced some uneasy responses. One
of the problems of conviction, particularly when one attempts
to persuade and influence through that conviction, is that it could
be genuine belief, but it could also be the result of conditioning.
The dilemma of faith against dogma is hardly new, but the
analysis of purpose was useful and necessary, particularly where
attempted persuasion is involved. It was important to ensure
that one was not relying on techniques to attempt change. In
the event, belief was found to be justified and the process fully
transferable. Thanks to the receptivity of colleagues in Education,
there was a reinforcement of conviction, but it is principally
experience and application which will persuade Education to
accept appraisal.
Experience of someone introducing, or assisting in introducing,
appraisal, is significant and may be seen as a building-block for
ultimate acceptance. Figure 5.1 shows how expertise and
knowledge applied through training and practical application can
effect change and acceptance. The process developed must also
reflect that practicality of application and usage.
The context of hoping to introduce appraisal into the three
schools concerned was the result, in each case, of a request.

59
Francis Arnold

Two were large comprehensive schools and the third an all-

girls’ high school. Each had the benefit of a headteacher who
saw appraisal as a fundamental responsibility of management,
and as a positive change for improvement within their schools.
There was no question of automatic acceptance by the school’s
staff however. The headteacher’s receptivity and conviction did
not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, and indeed there
was no guarantee whatsoever that my invitation would lead to
positive action. The headteachers perceived the value of using
someone from outside their normal working environment, who
could be seen as objective and independent, and as an agent
for change. My task, therefore, embraced a need to gain approval
and commitment through potential pilot groups to a process
which might later be accepted by the complete staffs. For the
two comprehensive schools, in 1985 and 1986, my role therefore
was to be multi-faceted:

1. Persuader—of principle, need and benefit.

2. Developer—of process through involvement and shared
ownership.
3. Facilitator—of actual introduction.
4. Analyser and evaluator—of the results with
recommendations for action.
5. Provider—of training and development action to meet
identified needs.

For the third school my role was to be ostensibly different but

would embrace some of the above list. At the girls’ school, I
was to chair a working party which would represent all levels
within the school. The need for the working party was accepted,
and our purpose was to develop a tailor-made process for the
school which we hoped would later be accepted by the remainder
of the staff and subsequently be introduced. The role differences
were subtle but nevertheless significant. For the two
comprehensive schools, one was the supplicant armed with
conviction but one hoped not zealotry. The process of acceptance
necessitated initial acceptance of the actual need for appraisal,
then a development of process with the consultant facilitating
the activities through agreement but very much in a separate
role as Figure 5.2 suggests.
Over a year later, in the girls’ high school I was in many ways
an honorary member of staff as a fully fledged and accredited

60
 The Introduction of Staff Appraisal into Schools

Figure 5.2 Generating acceptance

participant on the working party. The interaction here, shown

in Figure 5.3, was distinctly different.
In our endeavours in the three schools, one was very conscious
that appraisal should be seen as a means of motivational growth,
and also as the Stewarts’ (1977) ‘moment of privilege’. It was
not going to be particularly easy: the milieu (certainly during
1985) was not comfortable, but there was a shared desire for
success. I will admit, at one stage, to thinking that what one was
attempting was akin to one of Douglas Adams’ (1982) character’s
suggestion that the knack of flying was throwing yourself at the
ground and missing. Happily, we were able to develop more
manageable approaches—albeit less spectacular.

Need for appraisal

Before examining the processes developed it was necessary to

consider the reason for that development. Did the need for appraisal
really exist (other than through some individual belief) in each
school? The initial answer emerged as a qualified ‘yes’, providing
certain safeguards could be built into the process.

61
Francis Arnold

Figure 5.3 Interactions

These safeguards will be discussed later, but what was readily

accepted was my own strongly-held views, (offered unashamedly
and regularly to potential participants). These views were within
the aegis of what I have somewhat grandiosely termed the Four
Laws of Appraisal….

1. Comment, appreciation, praise and criticism by one person

of another must be made known to, and discussed with,
that other person.
2. None of us should be expected to operate in a vacuum of
assumption that there is an awareness, by others, of our
needs, concerns, and aspirations.
3. That any appraisal process should be ‘user friendly’, and
that it should not contain or generate any surprises, since
appraisal had to be the formalization of an on-going system
of continuous assessment and counselling.
4. That appraisal processes are only as effective and acceptable
as those involved in them. This implies training, commitment,
review and change.

There was a further view, more pragmatic perhaps, but it seemed

relevant to the current climate of proposed change in Education:
appraisal would come, there was every likelihood of its
introduction. My contention was that the ‘wise’ school was one
which anticipated change and developed an appraisal model which
represented the individuality (in terms of ethos and environment)
of the school. The alternative was to wait until some form of
mandatory and unilateral introduction arrived— with perhaps

62
 The Introduction of Staff Appraisal into Schools

reduced opportunity for adaptation or flexibility to suit individual

circumstances.
The references to change seem entirely appropriate. To
introduce staff appraisal is to introduce a significant, and for
some, worrying change. It is also a change process in its own
right, since resistance has to be overcome, participation
encouraged, and development effected with communication and
purpose. Due to the general reaction to the very idea of staff
appraisal one was acting as a change agent working with people,
rather than as a change enforcer.
Killing and Fry (1986) categorize three change situations—
anticipatory, reactive and crisis change. Their premise is that as
change situations develop, the unsatisfactory management of one
stage causes escalation to the next. My contention is that these
models, as Figure 5.4 suggests, are entirely relevant to the
introduction of appraisal. Without the acceptance of the need
for the introduction of appraisal, effectiveness suffers, and in
this context ‘effectiveness’ embraces motivation, well-being,
competence and commitment. The longer it takes to introduce
the change of appraisal—with the corresponding reduction of
time for involving others in the process—the lower the level of
performance.
My own work in introducing appraisal into the three schools
would appear to fit into Killing and Fry’s model. One was
encouraging the concept of anticipatory change, with its
opportunity of involvement and shared ownership, by developing
change (appraisal) processes which are particular to each school.
The pace of change here was through a series of incremental
and gradual steps, with an emphasis on the need to reassure, to
promote understanding, to focus on support and minimize delay
or obstruction. The style of change introduction is participatory,
with explanation and encouragement prevailing.
Missing this earlier opportunity could only lead to reactive
change where the introduction of appraisal allows more limited
time for that introduction and with the need to start to develop
on a broader front. One could envisage the situation of schools
being given a period of time in which an appraisal process had
to be introduced. This would make the initial steps more hazardous
in terms of resistance since the decrease in time would almost
inevitably generate resentment and a lack of receptivity.
Participation and involvement would be correspondingly dimin-
ished. The opportunity for school management teams to be
proactive would be slight.

63
Francis Arnold

Figure 5.4 Three types of change

64
 The Introduction of Staff Appraisal into Schools

The third projection, of crisis change, suggests the mandatory

introduction of staff appraisal with a need for fast, decisive action
and a commensurate upheaval. Involvement would be limited
to little more than reluctant acquiescence, but more seriously,
any support (likely to be viewed as the result of unacceptable
pressure) would be likely to be short-term only. With a risk of
failure becoming increasingly higher through reactive and crisis
change, it was apparent that my involvement in introducing staff
appraisal could best be effected using an anticipatory change
model.

Development of the appraisal process

Developing an appraisal process involves a series of linked stages

which must be carefully and thoughtfully completed. For two
of the three schools the process was identical, for the third there
was one significant addition and several minor amendments.
Examples of the actual processes will be given later in this chapter,
but at this point, I shall provide details of the ones developed
and employed, together with an indication of the time required
for the various stages. The accompanying comments are in no
way intended as definitive. Rather, they are observations against
events with all the expected revelations engendered by hindsight.
There were lessons learned with each exercise and, as often
happens, the confidence suggested by an experience proved to
be a motivating factor for commitment. Figure 5.5 shows the
development process in overall detail and subsequent tables provide
information and comment against each stage.

Situation analysis: (Stage 1)

The theme of this stage of the process is to analyse the situation

(in this context the possible introduction of staff appraisal) with
a view to identifying areas of concern and to obtain agreement
to their resolution. As Stage One shows, areas of concern
embraced the very concept of introducing appraisal, the roles
of the participants, and the likely implications of that introduction.
Agreement is clearly a need for advancement to subsequent
stages.

65
Francis Arnold

Figure 5.5 Introducing appraisal—the developmental process

Activity Comment

Expression of concern For all three schools the likelihood

of appraisal being introduced as a
facet of the professional teacher’s
working life was accepted. There
was, certainly in individual minds, a
feeling of inevitability, that there
would be mandatory (and possibly,
unilateral) introduction by central
Government. The need for appraisal
as a vehicle for development, and as
a safeguard in terms of reporting
and evaluation, was seen. Concerns
centred around the question of
confidentiality of the results (of an
appraisal exercise), and the use to
which those results might be put.
The role of the participants was
clarified, resulting in the writer
being accepted as:

66
 The Introduction of Staff Appraisal into Schools

ctivity Comment

1. A process consultant, who

would initiate, advise and monitor
the development of the process, and
to whom the members of the pilot
group would respond, with the
possibility of negotiation and
change (Schools A and B).
2. The chairman of the working
party where agreement had to be
achieved within each working stage,
thus obviating delay through
proposal and response (School C,
the High School).
Agreement In Schools A and B this was given,
but after a period of reflection and
consideration by the potential pilot
group. For School B this agreement
was concomitant with my developing
a ‘reverse process’ where the head of
faculty would be reviewed by the
faculty members. In School C
agreement had already been
determined prior to my assuming the
role of chairman of the working
party. Here, we obtained agreement
to the principle of self-appraisal, plus
the necessity for taking into account
the complexity of reporting
relationships.
Definition of the aim This activity is absolutely essential
and objectives of each before further activities can be
appraisal exercise undertaken. There must be no
question of developing a process first
then deciding an aim which in some
way matches that process. For
Schools A and B, I determined the
aim and objectives, offered these and
obtained acceptance. They were:

67
Francis Arnold

Activity Comment

Aim
To promote the most effective use
of the human resource within the
school, by reviewing Job
Performance, Needs Training,
Development and Concerns.
Objectives
1. To develop an appraisal/review
process which meets the determined
aim.
2. To establish, by success through a
pilot group, the credibility of a
review process which could
encourage other members of staff to
participate.
3. To generate improved
communication links between staff
and headteacher.

School C

Aim To promote professional

development by identifying
individual and group strengths and
needs in order to improve overall
performance and increase our ability
to respond to further opportunities.
Objectives
1. To identify and agree for the
coming review period individual and
group roles and objectives.
2. To establish a participative and
viable review process which will
enable us to identify and provide
response to, and support for, agreed
training and development needs
which will be communicated
throughout the school.

68
 The Introduction of Staff Appraisal into Schools

Activity Comment

3. To show awareness and

appreciation of identified strengths
and contributions.
The aims and objectives, once
defined were displayed in the staff
room with a request for the
immediate communication (to any
of the working party) of any
concerns or objections; none were
received.

At this point, before continuing the discussion of the activities

of decision analysis, it would seem appropriate to consider some
of the issues which have so far been raised. A number of these
will be repeated when the benefits of appraisal are listed, but I
would highlight the following at this stage:

Improved communication
By its very nature, through the open discussion of needs and
concerns, together with an increased awareness of expectations
and aspirations, communication improves dramatically. For all
three schools, this was seen as a considerable benefit.

Role agreement
A clearer understanding of colleagues’s roles and responsibilities
cannot help but enhance closer and more effective working
relationships. This was particularly true of School C, where, as
will be seen, an option of additional reviewers was developed.

Appreciation
A particular benefit of an appraisal/review process is that it
provides an opportunity for showing appreciation for the
contributions of the reviewed. Too often, praise and thanks are
taken for granted, and it was particularly pleasing to note the
pleasure and satisfaction of participants for whom appreciation
had been displayed.

69
Francis Arnold

Activity Comment

Reporting Relationships Cognizance was taken of the

complexity of reporting
relationships within a school, with
additional responsibilities for
pastoral and careers activities, for
example, forming part of a teacher’s
working environment.
In School A, the pilot group was
those with particular responsibility
for the sixth form and ranged from a
scale one teacher to the deputy
headteacher.
In School B, the complete (Science)
faculty acted as the pilot group and
in this instance ‘normal’ reporting
relationships were enforced.
The working party in School C
comprised a cross-section of school
staff which included the headteacher
and a part-time teacher. It was in
this school that the option of
selection of reviewers was
introduced.
Communication A pre-requisite for any hope of
success in the introduction of
appraisal/review is the
communication of activities to all
sectors of the organization. To this
end, for Schools A and B the
following initiatives were taken:
1. Fact sheets prepared and
circulated to all staff members
whether participating in the exercise
or not (fact sheets summarized the
proposals and process for each
school).

70
 The Introduction of Staff Appraisal into Schools

Activity Comment

2. ‘Surgeries’ were held by the

writer on two consecutive days in
both schools to allow any staff
member the opportunity of voicing
worries or queries. There were very
few visitors and their concerns were
with process rather than principle.

This holding of surgeries was viewed as a positive move but a

lesson has been learned in their use. For any further exercise of
this kind one would not hold them in a headteacher’s office.
Although the offices had been turned over to my sole use, I believe
that they might have been an intimidating factor with a suggestion
of hierarchical control. A more familiar location, such as a science
laboratory, might have been preferable rather than one associated
clearly in the mind of the staff with the senior management of
the school.

Activity Comment

Questionnaires Developed for all three schools for

participating staff. Analysis of the
data obtained showed a clear
indication of receptivity towards the
exercise.
Determination of title The wording is important. It was
found more acceptable to introduce
the word ‘review’ rather than the
more emotive ‘appraisal’ or
‘evaluation’.
In Schools A and B the title was
determined as: ‘The…School Career
Development Review’.
For School C the developed title
was: ‘The…School Professional
Development Review’.

71
Francis Arnold

Activity Comment

Process and timetable The task here was to develop a

process which would meet the
following criteria:
1. It should be straightforward in
terms of administration while
emphasizing the requirements of
confidentiality.
2. The process must be two-way,
and allow self-appraisal and the
expression of concerns, successes
and aspirations.
3. There must be an opportunity for
an exchange of information between
reviewer and reviewee which would
result in a statement of agreed
training and/or development action,
plus agreed objectives for the next
review period.
4. There should be some form of
appeal procedure in the event of
unresolved issues. This procedure
could include the availability of
some form of ‘ombudsman’ figure.
5. For School C there should be a
choice of additional reviewers to
supplement the comments of the
principal reviewer, taking additional
responsibilities into account.
6. The timetable of the review had
to be as little disruptive to the
school routine and curriculum as
possible. Discussions held suggested
that the introduction of the process
would

72
 The Introduction of Staff Appraisal into Schools

Activity Comment

prove a disruption whenever it was

held. What was agreed was to
develop a timetable which was as
short as possible, commensurate
with the requirements of
effectiveness and discipline.
The timetables evolved, and the
actions required followed. It is
worth noting that our endeavours
matched our planning and the
review processes were completed on
time. This discipline and
commitment was especially
commendable when considering the
climate of dispute prevalent. The
timetables were as follows:

Week one

A. Reviewer hands section one of the review document to the

reviewee. This (self-appraisal) section requires the reviewee to:

1. Describe the period under review in terms of achievements

and successes, plus difficulties encountered—with perceived
reasons for those difficulties.
2. List training and development needs against aspirations.
3. Complete this section within week one.

B. At the same time, during week one the reviewer completes

section two which is the reviewer’s perception of the period under
review, again in terms of achievements and any difficulties.

Weeks two and three

Counselling meetings held between reviewer and reviewee where
sections one and two are exchanged, agreed (and amended if
required), and section three completed. This section records an
agreed statement of the reviewee’s training and development needs
plus (agreed) objectives for the coming review period.

73
Francis Arnold

Weeks four and five

Senior reviewer (with the consultant) studies and analyses review

documents to determine what responsibility for further action
he or she has.

Activity Comment

Guidelines The development of guidelines for

reviewer and reviewee is essential
for any appraisal system. They will
obviously vary from process-to-
process but have the aim of
providing a workable framework for
completing the exercise. Examples
of these guidelines follow:

A Reviewee guidelines (Section 1)

1. Performance Describe your own performance
during the review period in terms of
achievements and successes.
2. Difficulties Include any difficulties you
encountered and suggest what help
you need, and from whom, to
overcome them.
3. Training and Identify any training and
Development development needs you believe you
have for your own development and
for an enhanced contribution to the
needs of the school.
4. Activities List any extra-curricular activities
you have been involved in, also any
courses you have completed (with
dates).
5. Contribution Suggest any other ways in which
you could contribute your particular
skills to the school, and which are
currently under-utilized.

74
 The Introduction of Staff Appraisal into Schools

6. Appreciation Where appropriate, please show

appreciation for any help and
support you have received.

B. Reviewer guidelines (Section 2)

1. Performance Describe the reviewee’s
performance during the review
period in terms of strengths,
successes, problems and needs.
2. Objectives Comment on the achievement levels
of agreed objectives.
3. Last review Describe what previously agreed
action has been completed and
what, if any, is outstanding.
4. Appreciation Include your appreciation, of, and
for, the reviewee’s contribution both
to your department and the school.

C. It is essential, for the success of the exercise, that both the

reviewer and reviewee are as open and objective in their
comments as possible (including those on each other).

Activity Comment

Training The need for training for appraisal

review is apparent—particularly
where there is no previous
experience of introduction. Training
falls into three categories:
1. Process training to ensure that
participants are completely au fait

75
Francis Arnold

Activity Comment

with the mechanics of the process to

ensure its smooth completion.
2. Counselling training (with
simulated review counselling
interviews).
3. Listening and questioning
techniques to ensure that the
discussion between reviewer and
reviewee is as productive as possible.
The use of video recording during
training for appraisal proved
worthwhile. Feedback and advice
have more impact when one has the
evidence of sight and sound.
Monitoring and The process implementation must be
controlling monitored to ensure that the
discipline of the timetable is
adhered to. Any ‘slippage’ with a
loss of impetus will result in a
corresponding loss of credibility. As
I have stated earlier, it was very
much to the credit of the
participants in all schools that
discipline and commitment to
complete the exercise within the
timetable was maintained. This
particularly applied to Schools A
and B when the exercise was held
during the difficult period of
teachers’ dispute.
Issue of post-review Designed to determine the
questionnaires effectiveness and acceptability of
the experience with particular
reference to the question: ‘Having
completed the review exercise,
would you recommend it to other
members of staff?’

76
 The Introduction of Staff Appraisal into Schools

Activity Comment

Training action planning An analysis of needs and required

action identified in order to develop
appropriate action planning.
A number of common needs were
identified with a few demands made
on the Local Education Authority
(who had been kept informed of the
progress of the various stages of the
development).
Discussions with Held approximately 4 months after
participants the exercise.

Implementation and documents used

Thus the review process in Schools A and B had four distinct

phases which are outlined in Figure 5.6. Sections 1 and 2 are
carried out by the participant and reviewer independently. Section
3, the counselling meeting, brings together the two parties and
leads to the development of a training or action plan which forms
the basis for Section 4. An outline of the documents which relate
to the first two and the last sections can be found in Figure 5.7.
The process in School C was somewhat different and this is
described in Figure 5.8.

School C
The basic procedure outline in Figure 3 is repeated but with the
addition of the option of the input from other reviewers.

Review of appraisal process

Illustrations of responses to appraisal documents follow but these

must be regarded as typical and general rather than specific. They
do. however, genuinely represent the positive nature of the
responses which had been generated.

77
Francis Arnold

Figure 5.6 A career development review plan (Schools A & B)

78
 The Introduction of Staff Appraisal into Schools

Figure 5.7 Appraisal document (Schools A & B)

79
Francis Arnold

Figure 5.8 Professional development review document (School C)

Section 1— Head of Department

‘During the period under review I believe that the department
has progressed during difficult circumstances. Union action has
caused disruption to classes and the normal pattern of teacher/
pupil interaction and relationships. Shortages in resources have
heightened our problems but determined and dedicated action
has been displayed by all members of this department.
I would like to be able to manage my time more effectively
so that less work has to be taken home and meetings and
discussions need not go on so long during after school hours.’

80
 The Introduction of Staff Appraisal into Schools

Section 2— Headteacher
‘Considering the difficulties under which the school has been
operating during the dispute with Government, I find that… has
run her department very well. Examination results have been good
and there seems to be an awareness throughout the school of
the service this department provides. I believe that relationships
between this Head of Department and her departmental members
are good. I would hope to see closer liaison and cooperation
between the English Department and Art, History and Geography,
and would welcome any joint initiatives developing. In the interests
of…’s development, I believe that some form of management
training would be helpful. Finally, I welcome this opportunity
of expressing my appreciation of a dedicated and professional
colleague.’

Section 3— Joint Agreement of Action

‘By the end of the next term the Headteacher will receive the
results of a planning meeting to improve liaison between the four
departments mentioned in Section 3.
The Headteacher will investigate the options for arranging a
management training course (which will include the management
of time) for….’

Problems

It would be unrealistic to suggest that the introduction of appraisal

into schools which have no tradition of appraisal is without
problems. The experience from the three schools discussed in
this chapter suggests that the following observations encompass
the perceived difficulties and disadvantages.

1. The pressure of what is perceived as ever-increasing work

demands makes the timing of the introduction of appraisal
particularly acute. The standard response was that there was not,
nor ever would be, a convenient time. For Schools A and B the
period agreed upon was March/April and for School C, September.

2. There is concern about the ability of the reviewer to actually

meet agreed and identified needs. Should this be the case then
the credibility of the process will be in jeopardy, and there is

81
Francis Arnold

likely to be a loss of commitment to further involvement.

Fortunately, this did not prove to be the case with this experience
and emerging needs were dealt with within the resources of the
schools and the writer.

3. There may be suspicion, because of past problems or

relationships, and a reluctance to accept change.

4. There may be a reluctance on behalf of the reviewee to admit

to difficulties, for fear of the use to which this information might
be put. This was appreciated and it would be facile to suggest
that practice will soften the concern. I believe that the process
of separate completion by reviewer and reviewee does merit
support. Unlike certain industrial appraisal models, where the
reviewer does not write anything until the reviewee’s input has
been received, the processes I have outlined do aid the reviewee’s
honest comment with an emphasis on the identification of the
reasons or causes for any difficulties encountered.

5. Appraisal does require honesty and objectivity in comment.

If the process is to provide benefit, that benefit can only be brought
about by the expression and acceptance of concerns, followed
by agreed action for their resolution. Blandness will achieve little.

6. Completing an appraisal exercise is inevitably a drain on those

prime resources of people and time. There is no way of obviating
this problem, of course, but what proved essential was the
application of participants to the discipline of the agreed timetable.
Discussions were held as to the possibility of providing cover
for staff involved in the exercise. If the entire staff is to participate
then complete cover is clearly unlikely. The reality is that time
has to be found, in spite of other demands, and of the conditions
of service proposed. It was also apparent that the shorter, intense
timetable was preferable to a protracted exercise which could
lead to a loss of impetus and commitment.

Benefits

1. The process does improve knowledge and understanding of

concerns and needs. This understanding will improve relationships
and can be a very heartening event.

82
 The Introduction of Staff Appraisal into Schools

2. As a communication exercise it is difficult to beat. The feedback

received from participants was unanimous in acknowledging the
benefit of honest and objective communication.
3. Successfully completed, appraisal is a motivating factor in
its own right. My experience is that it can generate a positive
corporate spirit of awareness and commitment.
4. Appraisal is a safeguard for the appraised. The vacuum of
assumption I previously mentioned is dispelled and there is an
available record of opinion and commitment which the individual
can refer to. This is a valuable document which is ‘on call’ for
references, applications and discussion.
5. The process provides an ideal, and often long-awaited,
opportunity for expressing appreciation. Time often obstructs
opportunity for more than fleeting praise; appraisal focuses and
records specific appreciation for contribution.
6. Pure objectivity is near impossible to attain, but a process which
includes self-appraisal and an exchange generates an objective
environment for development.
7. The reviewer’s commitment to the growth of the reviewed is
an affirmation of responsibility which is under scrutiny and
monitoring. The very fact of the reviewer having recorded his
or her agreement to take action to meet needs ensures that
responsibility cannot be shelved or unduly delayed.
8. The activity of developing a process which is appropriate to
the ethos of the school does generate a strong sense of shared
ownership.
9. Job responsibilities are confirmed with the opportunity for
updating personal information—such as training completed.
10. Appraisal is the natural and desirable extension of the
continuous observation and review which the manager completes.
The counselling meeting provides a focus for fresh knowledge
and commitment.

Conclusion

The results, happily, confirmed the desirability of introducing

appraisal. The benefits experienced by the schools involved
outweighed the (understandable) concerns and suspicions, and

83
Francis Arnold

many fears and shibboleths have been dispelled. I would, therefore,

recommend the introduction of staff appraisal review to anyone
considering it by summarizing the following key elements:
1. It is, in spite of its emotive connotation, a unifying activity
where development and ownership is shared.
2. As a communication exercise within departments it is particularly
effective. The exchange of views and concerns lead to greater
understanding of needs and aspirations.
3. It is management practice which displays that acceptance of
responsibility for assisting in the development of staff, and in
so doing provides the (often rare) opportunity for demonstrating
awareness of effort and difficulties, and expressing appreciation.
4. Properly trained for and executed, the process of appraisal is
a motivating agent through improved relationships. The agreement
of further objectives and action strengthens links between reviewer
and reviewee with its joint acceptance of responsibilities.
5. It is a safeguard for the reviewed where recorded and available
comment replaces any feeling of uncertainty or assumption.
6. The role of the ‘outsider’ to help and advise in the development
of the process has been justified.
Finally, I would express my appreciation of the receptivity, skills
and generosity of three very committed and impressive
headteachers: Eunice Phillips, Richard Nosowski and Jim Wilson.

84
Chapter 6

Whole-School Evaluation
and Staff Appraisal in
Secondary Schools
S.M.Slater

Introduction

I shall attempt in this chapter to draw out for the reader my views
of whole-school evaluation based on considerable work carried
out during two headships, as chairman of a working party to
develop a new authority document on evaluation in the
Metropolitan Borough of Solihull, and as a partner in ‘Evaluation
in Education.’ The latter partnership has organized a range of
national conferences and published a National Journal on
Evaluation for a number of years.
I should, at this early stage, record my thanks to all those
colleagues who have added to my knowledge and experience in
this field. Evaluation is, of course, a corporate professional exercise
and cannot be carried out in isolation. It is, then, a way of looking
at our school, the management structure, school curriculum and
the professional development of the staff. Evaluation should, no,
must, become an accepted formal part of school routine, its aim
to improve performance in all areas of school life.
We should build on the informal frameworks for evaluation which
already exist within all schools. Time does not permit us to develop
a new and expensive superstructure nor to dally with ideas that do
not pay off. The multiplicity of pressures that we face each day in
school will not cease while we erect new and complex systems.
We should then use sensitively the management structures and
responsibilities which staff already hold within our institutions. This

85
S.M.Slater

may not be as difficult as one might expect; however, the process

does require considerable in-service training as well as negotiations
with staff. It also requires us to be clear about the terminology which
we choose to use. In this chapter, therefore, I shall use ‘evaluation’
to refer to a systematic review of a school in terms of its procedures
and achievements, based on its aims, objectives and targets. Appraisal
is the assessment of performance of staff based on the context within
which they work. A ‘section’ is a part of a school for which a senior
or middle manager has responsibility.
It is important to emphasize that staff appraisal can only be
viewed as forming part of a whole-school approach to evaluation
and professional development. Viewed in isolation staff appraisal
can only be damaging, rather than the rewarding process it should
be when integrated into a coherent whole-school programme of
evaluation. Staff appraisal is about making people feel bigger
not smaller.
What follows, then, must necessarily be seen in relation to
the structures and patterns which exist in particular institutions.
We must bear in mind that we are dealing with individuals in
the service who vary in expertise, experience and commitment.
We must, therefore, build on our staffs’ strengths, be sensitive
but resolute in our determination to improve quality and
performance in our schools by developing formal systems for
evaluating our work. No one system or scheme of evaluation will
suit all schools: an important part of the process is to allow schools
to discuss, negotiate and develop their own system. Ownership
and commitment to the process of evaluation is essential and
rewarding. Fruitful ways of approaching the area of evaluation
and appraisal have thus been identified.

Reasons for evaluation

There are many reasons for embarking on evaluation and it is

essential that staff are aware of these. However, three common
aspects can be established. Firstly, it is a means of establishing
an understanding of our current position in relation to our aims
and objectives. Secondly, it allows us to redefine, where applicable,
our aims and objectives, therefore improving our effectiveness
and efficiency. Finally, it is a means of accounting to an external
agent about our performance. The understandings held by staff
of why we should evaluate will clearly be reflected in the variety
of perceptions and roles of those within the education service.

86
 Whole-School Evaluation and Staff Appraisal

Therefore, at LEA level the emphasis may well be placed on

the need to be able to make efficient planning decisions in relation
to the provision and allocation of resources, and to be able to
identify staff training needs across the authority. At LEA level
the need to be able to account for policy decisions, to report
and justify proposals for forward planning will be an essential
outcome of evaluation, and so on.
At school level, evaluation will be regarded as a continual process
of evaluating how well the aims and objectives of the school are
being met. Therefore, it is essential that agreed and fully negotiated
aims and objectives are followed by all within the institution. At
whole-school level we will wish to review our curriculum provision
both formal and informal. This will allow us to be in the position
of being able to judge whether our curriculum is broad based,
coherent and balanced for each pupil, encourages and teaches pupils
to learn, reflects the changing demands of society, and enhances
each child’s personal and social development. It is also important
at this level to be able to judge whether we provide effectively
for staff support and encouragement by recognizing, praising, and
disseminating good practice, improving professional communication
systems, identifying needs for in-service training, and identifying
areas of weakness and devising means of support (Solihull 1986).
We would also wish to be able to make judgments about the
management and organizational structure of the school. Evaluation
at the level of the whole school will finally also enable us to satisfy
the proper demands of accountability. At section level the identified
reasons for evaluation may well be different but there will be
common areas, such as reviewing the aims and objectives of the
section, reviewing the management structure and roles/
responsibilities of staff, developing strategies for departmental INSET
and so on. However, there will be a focusing on individual teachers
so that the process of evaluation will enable them—
To extend and develop their own teaching styles and strategies
To agree common areas and shared priorities within the
section.
To develop strategies for effective use of materials in the
classroom.
To assess the suitability of material.
To assess the effectiveness of pupil assessment procedures.
To improve classroom management skills.
To be able to account for current practice.

87
S.M.Slater

It is therefore essential to remember, when embarking on evaluation,

that different views and expectations will be held by staff at
different levels within the service about the reasons for evaluation.
The most important point is that it must deliver personally to
all those involved in the process by improving the quality of their
performance through professional development.
As is fitting, I have dealt with some of the many internal reasons
for embarking on whole-school evaluation. However, there is a
range of external pressures on schools which reflect directly on
the school itself. Indeed, perhaps the term ‘external’ is inappropriate.
Figure 6.1 is an attempt to summarize the pressures which are
influencing our schools and moving us closer to the need to
undertake formal evaluative procedures. The reader will, I am certain,
wish to include others. However, for the sake of space, I have
focused on four main influences; educational, economic, societal
and political. During the 1980s we have seen mounting pressure
from the DES to develop formal evaluation/appraisal schemes at
local Authority/school level. The year 1985 was an important one
in the development of thinking in terms of evaluation and appraisal.
Better Schools, (DES, 1985a) stated that regular and formal appraisal
of the performance of all teachers is necessary if LEAs are to have
the reliable, comprehensive, and up to date information necessary
to facilitate effective professional support and development and
to deploy teaching staff to the best advantage.
In the same year, the HMI publication Quality in Schools:
Evaluation and Appraisal, (DES, 1985b) and the Suffolk study
Those Having Torches: Teacher Appraisal—A study (Suffolk, 1985)
also offered further pressure. The 1986 Education Act and the
1987 Teachers’ Conditions of Service (DES, 1987) have made
evaluation and appraisal an integral part of our professional duty.
We do not have ‘options’: evaluation and appraisal must now
be seen as a ‘common core’ element to our work and development.
School life is indeed dynamic and complex. It has always required
careful planning and monitoring. However, this must no longer
be seen as an informal process, rather an explicitly stated formal
process. As a headteacher of a school moving to full financial
autonomy, the necessity for us to enhance and develop our present
system of school evaluation is clear if we are to ensure educational
quality and financial efficiency. Recent Government proposals
may well see further developments in this area of financial
budgeting to all secondary schools.

88
 Whole-School Evaluation and Staff Appraisal

Figure 6.1 Pressures to review the work of schools

89
S.M.Slater

Cards on the table: good schools—the piecemeal trap

As professionals we are all aware that our schools, departments,

sections, etc. can never reach that point at which we are all satisfied,
because good schools can always be better. When we believe we
have reached that optimal point of quality it’s probably time for
us to retire and for others to take our place and continue with
improvements. However, what is certain in my mind is that there
are four major elements or touchstones to achieving a good school
or section. These elements are shown below in a simple diagram.

If any of these touchstones are missing then the foundations on

which we build are unsafe. It is perhaps more appropriate to think
of these elements as overlapping circles with management as the
core element. Readers will immediately realize that the
management function

is perhaps the one in which teachers, including headteachers,

have received little or no training at all in the past. However,
developments are taking place in the profession to enhance our
management training, including the setting up of training centres
for headteachers, and a range of other courses for all who are
prepared to accept the need for training. Some, unfortunately,
within our profession seem to reject the need for management

90
 Whole-School Evaluation and Staff Appraisal

training, believing that teaching has nothing to do with

management! Perhaps the outcome of this view has been the
piecemeal development of our education system over the last
twenty-five years. Curriculum development during the 1960s and
early 1970s was a cause for particular concern. Curriculum projects
were often seen in isolation with no recognition of whole-school
developments or indeed of the need to evaluate and monitor these
new courses. In many schools the curriculum has developed in
an ad hoc if not totally unsatisfactory manner. Aspects of Secondary
Education in England (DES, 1979a) supports this view and this
led to much of the pressure to develop common core curricula.
Perhaps, more importantly, the piecemeal approach to curriculum
development has also been mirrored, in schools, by a piecemeal
approach to evaluation.
Evaluation and subsequent change have been crises-orientated,
e.g. bad geography results last year mean some changes will have
to be made in the geography department. Similarly, the professional
development of our teachers has often been pursued in a piecemeal
way. ‘Teachers go off on courses, disseminate little of what they
learn, and the effect of resources expended is seldom evaluated,
save by the staffroom stalwart who notices the substitution list.’
(Slater and Long, 1986, p.44.) The need to develop a whole-
school approach to identifying staff INSET requirements is
essential if we are to move forward and develop a coherent
approach to professional development. The recent developments
in terms of Grant Related In-Service Training (GRIST) will
undoubtedly enhance this movement. I would argue that we can
overcome these piecemeal developments in our schools by drawing
together, through management, whole-school policies on
curriculum, staff development and evaluation.

Creating the climate—stage-by-stage process

All major innovations require detailed planning and careful

preparation, and those affected need to be involved in this
planning and preparation. Evaluation is clearly a major innovation
and it is essential, therefore, to involve all staff at all stages
in developing the process that will be used in the school. The
first stage in the process is the development of commitment
by the headteacher. This needs to be followed swiftly by training,
which should perhaps be provided by the LEA via residential

91
S.M.Slater

conferences for headteachers. It is important for headteachers

to feel ‘comfortable’ within the field of evaluation, to understand
the reasons for and advantages of formal review, and to be aware
of the processes involved in developing a whole-school approach
to evaluation.
My own experiences as a head of both academic and pastoral
sections of a school, as a timetabler, director of studies and deputy
head in charge of school evaluation were excellent training grounds,
as was my postgraduate training in management and qualitative/
quantitive research techniques. Fortunately, ten years on, we are
better placed to develop more formal training sessions on evaluation
and appraisal, such as those within my own education authority.
The headteacher, then, has a responsibility to train his/her senior
staff team (in both my schools this team included deputy
headteachers and senior teachers). This can be achieved by formal
in-service sessions, discussions and regular meetings of the senior
staff team focusing on management and evaluation. It is important
that evaluation and appraisal starts at this level within the school,
a point to which I shall return later.
The headteacher should then, in partnership with the LEA and
senior staff, take on the responsibility of training the senior and
middle managers of staff in the principles and techniques of
management and evaluation. We have achieved this via weekend
residential training sessions. These training sessions are essential
in that they set the trend for future developments as well as
improving team building skills. The aims and objectives of our
weekend conference were clearly stated and working sessions
task orientated. (See Appendix 1.) I would argue strongly for
residential conferences in that they offer formal and informal
opportunities for face-to-face interactions. It is important that
all staff are aware that the conference is taking place and that it
is part of a process of staff training and development in terms
of a whole-school approach to evaluation. It is equally important
that staff are aware that they are to be trained/consulted before
any such evaluation/appraisal programmes are introduced. This
can be achieved in a number of ways through the formal meeting
schedule or through specific meetings or papers to staff.
The next stage for creating the climate is to hold similar training
sessions for all staff involved in the school. These training sessions
must allow for open discussion and interchange of ideas. It is
important to allay all fears and to agree on areas such as
confidentiality. It is vital to establish an atmosphere of trust and
a feeling of security. This can be achieved if all understand that

92
 Whole-School Evaluation and Staff Appraisal

the process of evaluation and appraisal is about professional

development and improving the quality of what we offer to our
pupils. Headteachers may feel it appropriate, with the permission
of governors, to use in-service training days for the purposes
of developing plans and strategies for whole-school evaluation.
We have used training weekend conferences, occasional days,
early closures and meetings after school. Time spent wisely in
training preparation, planning and agreement, will pay dividends
in the future when the process is under way.
Creating the climate through a staged in-service training programme
designed to meet the needs of individuals and sections within the
school should enhance the success of the evaluation programme.
The important role played by senior staff in leading the initial work
on evaluation and appraisal is perhaps one of the key indications
to staff that there is nothing to lose or fear from the process. However,
it does require confidence and trust amongst the senior staff, hence
the need not only for training but also for team building programmes.
The professional development programme should also make clear
to all that staff appraisal or, as I prefer to call it, the professional
development interview, is only part of the overall evaluation
programme. It is also a two-way process between the person conducting
the professional development interview and the interviewee. The criteria
for appraisal must be negotiated in advance and agreed by the parties
prior to the interview. These interviews cannot take place without
such planning, material and data gathering, and classroom observation.
Indeed, in my experience it is advisable to hold a pre-interview meeting
to draw up the agenda for the actual professional development
interview, and agree on what material needs to be collected and how
this is to be done.

The process

Creating the climate is an integral part of the process of evaluation.

It will be through the programme of in-service training that the
framework for agreed action will develop. The task orientated
residentials, in-service training days, and meetings will cover
not only the principal purposes, conditions and outcomes of
evaluation, but also the procedures or framework for action to
be undertaken. The process developed within my schools has
been very similar, relying heavily on the present management
structures. When senior staff have been trained in the field of
evaluation, a framework for action at senior staff level needs to

93
 S.M.Slater

Figure 6.2 Staffing matrix for allocating responsibilities in a school

94
 Whole-School Evaluation and Staff Appraisal

be identified and agreed. This framework will later form the basis
for discussion with staff regarding a whole-school approach to
evaluation. It will, from our experiences, start with clarifying
the school’s aims and objectives and then move to the identification
of job description and roles and responsibilities for senior staff,
including the headteacher. These role descriptions need to be
discussed, agreed and published in the staff handbook. It is essential
to engage the help of middle managers when discussing the roles
and responsibilities of senior staff to avoid misinterpretations
and taken-for-granted assumptions.
There are a range of ways to allocate and negotiate roles and
responsibilities. However, I have found the matrix approach
particularly useful (see Figure 6.2). The headteacher draws up
a matrix and asks senior staff either to identify their present areas
of work or provide this draft completed as a starting point for
discussion. I believe that role enrichment is one of the tasks of
headship. It is for this reason that we have role changes after a
period of three years. This also allows for future individual
negotiations where role changes are agreed by all concerned.
Clearly, if we as a senior staff team, which for me includes
the deputy headteachers and senior teachers, are looking at our
performance then we must start from the firm base of known
role descriptions and responsibilities. The next step is for senior
staff to set short-term targets and agree ways of evaluating
successes. These short-term achievable targets can initially be
team targets (non-threatening) and should be communicated to
all staff. Indeed, staff may well be involved in helping to achieve
these targets, e.g. pupil promptness to lessons. However, it is
the senior staff team’s performance that will be evaluated,
discussed and agreed by the senior staff team. Once started,
the process will undoubtedly gather momentum and early success
will lead to target setting as a regular part of management
procedures. Individual targets will clearly be based on role and
the job descriptions and should be a contribution of short- and
long-term prioritized tasks. It is important that the headteacher
assess carefully the targets set to ensure that they are achievable.
There is initially a tendency to overstretch the realms of
possibility in terms of achievable targets. The ways of evaluating
performance will be many, quantitive and qualitative (Appendix
2) depending upon tasks set. However, a common element will
be the professional development interview (Appendix 3). These
two-way interviews with the headteacher are based on detailed
agendas negotiated and agreed in advance between both parties.

95
S.M.Slater

Figure 6.3 A process framework for senior staff

Confidentiality will have been agreed in advance of all

interviews, including what will appear in writing and what
may be placed on record cards or files. However, written
outcomes in terms of new target areas for action need to be
stated at the interview. Inset programmes and professional
development discussions are also set in motion where
appropriate. It is always advantageous to have a brief follow-
up interview to allow for further comments after reflection.
The advantages of these interviews need to be publicized to
the staff body as a whole by the senior staff. This can be done
by summarizing what has happened at senior staff level: it
has been a movement from aims and objectives, to role
negotiation; from clarification and acceptance, to target setting,
initially team based, then individually; followed by evaluation
and appraisal. (See Figure 6.3.)
It will be clear from the process so far that regular formal
meetings of senior staff will be an essential feature of the
programme. They are, of course, present in most schools. However,
these meetings will become perhaps more important as they are
now evaluative, discussing the future direction of the school in
relation to senior staff targets, including those of the headteacher.
Senior staff colleagues will now be aware of their colleagues’
targets, thus ensuring no duplication or inefficiencies. We are
now moving towards management by target setting and a team
management philosophy. During this process continued
professional development and support from the LEA will be an

96
 Whole-School Evaluation and Staff Appraisal

essential requirement. It is also during this stage that it is important

to publicize the benefits of evaluation. Indeed, many staff,
especially middle managers, will be directly involved in the
collection of evaluative data for senior staff. Many staff will also
be crucially involved in aiding their senior staff colleagues to
set short and long term targets.

The process framework at middle management level

Middle managers will, through the in-service training

programmes set in motion by the senior staff team, be aware
of the advantages and purposes of evaluation. This, together
with the additional feedback from their senior staff colleagues
through formal and informal meetings, should make them ready
to become involved in a similar process. The starting point is
again to discuss and negotiate roles and responsibilities. Here
as well the matrix can be useful. Senior staff who have direct
responsibility for heads of section will already be aware of how
to tackle the procedures of negotiation, having been through
the process themselves. Clearly, staff within each section may
also be approached by the head of section for feedback about
his or her role. Training of senior and middle managers, as
mentioned earlier, is important at this stage because they will
follow the same procedures as senior staff in terms of setting
targets and evaluating their progress. However, since all the
staff in the school will now become involved at some level or
another in evaluation work, it is essential to embark on whole-
school INSET and discussions about the evaluative process to
be used in the school.

Whole-school process framework

We have found that, by starting with senior management, staff

are willing to see the process as essentially supportive. It also
allows the senior staff to develop an expertise in the theory and
practice of evaluation before asking others to become involved.
It is at this stage, then, that staff development is essential for
all staff. If support can be obtained from the LEA/GRIST then
a two-day residential course, targeted to develop a framework
for action for staff to discuss, is an advantage. In my first school
this residential course identified the framework (see Figure 6.4)

97
S.M.Slater

Figure 6.4 The process of review at department level

98
 Whole-School Evaluation and Staff Appraisal

which was eventually agreed by all staff after several INSET/

discussion meetings. It focuses on section level but carries the
hallmark of the process developed at senior staff level, i.e. setting
aims and objectives for the section (which must reflect whole-
school aims and objectives), and the use of GRIST for identifying
roles and responsibilities, agreeing evaluative procedures and
criteria, target setting, review and the stating of new targets. It
can also be seen that appraisal interviews are a delegated
management function—the headteacher appraising his senior staff,
senior staff their section heads, and section heads their staff. It
was also agreed that staff could speak to and be appraised by
senior colleagues if appropriate or desired.
In my present school, where the process is not yet fully
operational due to external pressures, we developed a similar
framework at a task orientated in-service training day. The training
day was preceded by an in-service training weekend for senior
staff and senior middle managers (heads of year/faculty). The
framework (Figure 6.5) is indeed similar to that in Figure 6.4,
using the existing management structure as the key to the process
framework. In both schools the framework was accepted by the
staff with the proviso that we might well change elements of
the programme if we felt it appropriate.

Recognizing our responsibilities

As suggested elsewhere in this chapter each school will need

to devise a programme of evaluation suited to its own particular
needs. It is vital, therefore, that this period of staff discussion
is well planned and written up. It must allow time to explore
individual thoughts, feelings, worries, and to establish the principle
that the process is concerned with professional development of
all staff from the headteacher to probationer. It is also important
to provide a framework for individual discussions, if required,
with the headteacher or designated head of the evaluation
programme. It is also vital to ensure that all relevant documentation
outlining the process is available for all staff.
By delegating evaluation and staff appraisal to section level
we developed a process of whole-school review which was based
on present structures within school. No expensive, time consuming
superstructures needed to be erected, and teachers felt at ease
working within a framework with which they were familiar. It
also meant, perhaps for the first time, that senior and middle

99
S.M.Slater

Figure 6.5 The process of school review

100
 Whole-School Evaluation and Staff Appraisal

managers and their teams recognized their full range of

responsibilities. Heads of section were required to negotiate
aims and objectives, clarify roles and responsibilities, and review
their work, which included observing their staff teaching (senior
staff providing cover where necessary). However, before the
latter could take place, department and pastoral teams had to
discuss the criteria for good lessons and performance (surely
an essential requirement of all teaching teams?). Classroom
observation like the appraisal interview was, of course, two-
way, heads of section being observed by their staff. It should
be re-emphasized that staff appraisal cannot be viewed in some
kind of theoretical isolation since we all work within those teams
as part of section review. However, staff appraisal must be well
planned (see Appendix 3) and staff must be fully trained in how
to carry out the interview.

Recording and reporting

Once the framework for action is agreed by staff, be prepared

for a vast increase in the demand for professional development
programmes at individual, section and whole-school level. Areas
for training, such as target setting, classroom observation, report
writing, curriculum review, two-way staff appraisal, management
and many other needs, will soon be identified by staff engaging
in the process framework. This provision is vital if we are to
respond quickly to these professional demands of our staff.
Having developed a framework for agreed action it was
important to work towards the production of our annual reports
for section managers, headteachers, governors and LEA. The
report was used to identify a range of important matters, including
review of last year’s work and, vitally, future plans for action
in some considerable detail. The headings of the reports were
as follows:

1. School philosophy/aims, objectives.

2. School resources—staffing, buildings, capitation, etc.
3. Section reports Department/Year areas
(a) Aims and objectives
(b) Staffing—roles/responsibilities
(c) Curriculum schemes of work

101
S.M.Slater

(i) Successful areas

(ii) Areas in need of improvement
(iii) Changes anticipated.
(d) Assessment procedures/pupil profiles/external
examinations
(i) Suitability
(ii) Areas for improvement
(iii) Changes anticipated.
(e) Resource allocation
(i) Suitability
(ii) Changes desired for future
(iii) Bids for extra resourcing with evidence.
(f) Rooming/Timetable
(i) Suitability—advantages/disadvantages
(ii) Desired changes for next year.
(g) INSET/Provision
(i) Courses attended team/individual
(ii) INSET needs for next academic year,
(h) Priorities for action
(i) Last year’s priorities reviewed
(ii) New priorities set.

The head of section, together with his or her staff, will then
produce the report over a period of time, usually in the summer
term, for presentation to myself and the deputy headteacher
in charge of school evaluation. However, it is important to
stress that this document for the year is based on an ongoing
programme of target setting, curriculum review and staff
appraisal. In both schools, I and the deputy head or senior
member of staff responsible for the pastoral and the academic
sections of the school carry out in-depth interviews with the
heads of section based on their reports. It is then our job to
compile a full school report for our own purposes and for the
purpose of accountability.

Conclusion

My experience suggests that by engaging in evaluation, we

improve our motivation, and performance at all levels. It is a
prerequisite to good management, coherent curriculum
development, and staff training. As a profession we have nothing
to fear from evaluation or appraisal. It provides for us, in terms

102
 Whole-School Evaluation and Staff Appraisal

of accountability, with a recognition of our efforts. However,

more importantly, it enhances the educational provision that
we offer to our pupils. It is for this reason that we must all
include evaluation and, therefore, appraisal within the 1,265
contractual hours.

103
Chapter 7

Whole-School Staff
Appraisal in the Primary
School
A.J.Richardson

Introduction

Systematic curriculum and school self-evaluation within primary

schools is still generally uncommon—despite the impetus of local
authority based initiatives and national developments such as
Guidelines for Review and Internal Development in Schools
(GRIDS) and the work of the Suffolk team in Those having Torches
(1985). Less common still are evaluation structures or systems
within primary schools which address how primary teachers carry
out their complex roles as class teacher, post-holder/curriculum
consultant, specialist, manager and so on. In 1983 HMI noted that
some self-evaluation was taking place in 56 LEAs although at that
time only 11 had mandatory procedures requiring the production
of written reports (DES, 1985b). Since this time there has been a
marked increase in these kinds of activities, whether they be school
or LEA based. Better Schools (DES, 1985a) also had much to say
about how the Government intended to introduce legislation requiring
LEAs formally and systematically to appraise the performance of
teachers. The recent Education Act (1986 No. 2) confirmed this
and it is only a matter of time before some sort of national teacher
appraisal system is developed. Certainly, since April 1987 teachers
and headteachers are bound by imposed conditions of service which
make such an appraisal system possible and likely.
It is within this context that the evaluation/appraisal scheme
at Green Lanes has developed. A key feature of the processes

104
 Whole-School Staff Appraisal in the Primary School

which have evolved in the school over the last three years is that
they are part and parcel of a continuous programme of whole-
school development. HMI commented in 1985 that,

…teacher appraisal appears to work best where the

school as a whole is accustomed to looking critically at
its practices; and certainly the evaluation of curricular,
pastoral and other provision is given more substance and
credibility if it includes an assessment of the functions
and performance of individual teachers.
(DES, 1985b, p.47.)

This assumes, of course, that the school has successfully arrived

at the point where the staff can openly address curriculum and
pedagogic issues together, and have developed a collegial approach
to the development of the school. This is difficult to achieve but
it is an essential prerequisite to the development or adoption by
the school of systems for professional teacher appraisal. It is
difficult to achieve because in many primary schools the autonomy
of individual teachers is a dominant ideology.
Even in so-called progressive open primary schools, teacher
autonomy appears to dominate. Sharp and Green’s study in the
mid-1970s illustrated that the common vocabulary of progressive
education employed by primary teachers, that is the use of phrases
such as ‘stages of learning’, ‘child-centred’, ‘pupil autonomy
and decision-making’, seemed to operate as badges or ritual
symbols of commitment to the political structure of the school.
The rhetoric of openness, self-evaluation and child-centredness
appeared to function in staff discussion but not in the classroom,
where teachers protected their individual autonomy by proclaiming
their tacit agreement with the school’s dominant ideology at
staffroom level—leaving them free to operate as they liked in
the classroom. (Sharp and Green, 1975.)
It is not suprising that this should be so. Primary schools
have tended to be organized around the single class-teacher
model. This teacher is generally responsible for the planning,
preparation, delivery and evaluation for what counts as the
curriculum for the individual pupils in his or her care. In some
schools there are team teaching or exchange arrangements but,
in the main, the quality of the education that the pupils receive
is a direct consequence of the quality of the work of the class
teacher. Thus, in most primary schools, the structural organization
of the school tends to programme the extent to which individual

105
A.J.Richardson

teachers are willing to participate in self- or collective evaluation

of classroom work.
This chapter will describe an approach to staff appraisal which
has developed during the last three years, within the context
of ‘whole-school’ evaluation and curriculum development. During
this time an attempt has been made to develop within the school
a context and platform for review and evaluation of our
professional work. I take the view that teaching should provide
a research opportunity for all teachers. Every time we teach
or work alongside children or colleagues, we are making a series
of mostly intuitive judgments about what is going on. The best
kind of teaching is that which capitalizes upon these judgments
in order to enhance children’s learning opportunities and to
address what the Schools Council termed ‘curriculum match’.
This judgment should inform the planning, delivery and
organization of the curriculum and of the structures operating
within the school. This may seem an obvious point to make
but, in my experience, it is uncommon for these intuitive
judgments to acquire any real substance. They tend to be lost
within the immediacy of the classroom and are rarely utilized
in professional planning. This chapter will illustrate an approach
to enabling these ‘judgments’ to become more systematic and
consequently, more useful.

Establishing a professional context

The process of teacher appraisal should be the natural and logical

consequence of developing the school and the curriculum. The
key aims of the process should be the enhancement of educational
opportunities for the pupils and professional opportunities for the
staff. To try and achieve this it is essential that a context to facilitate
the professional development of colleagues is created. Despite the
apparent openness of many primary schools, the act of teaching
remains an almost private act for many teachers. Discussion of
how we teach is taboo. How can the curriculum be developed without
influencing or changing the way teachers teach? The simple answer
is that it cannot. When I was appointed to Green Lanes in 1984,
discussion of how we teach, what we teach or why we teach was
not occurring. This was mainly due to the lack of a context within
which to discuss this. The school had eight classes and a 60-place
nursery. Each unit within the school operated largely in isolation.
The curriculum was, on the whole, devolved to individual teachers.

106
 Whole-School Staff Appraisal in the Primary School

A major feature identified by staff was the lack of continuity between

classes but somehow this issue had not been collectively addressed.
I took the decision that before any changes were proposed in the
professional work of the school, I needed to define my role as
headteacher in terms of facilitating and initiating an evaluation
process. I said that I would (and I spelt this out in writing) spend
approximately three days each week working alongside teachers
and children throughout the school in order to begin the process
of making an assessment of the learning needs of the children and
hence the curriculum needs of the school. It was also made clear
that the end result of these teaching, observation and subsequent
discussion sessions would be to identify the points at which pupils’
needs were being successfully met. I also emphasized that the starting
point for this assessment needed to be how the pupils were operating
within the curriculum. Although my presence was initially perceived
as a threat to some staff, I found that I was quickly accepted because
I deliberately tried to play a helpful ‘classroom assistant’ role. I
worked with children and assisted the staff.
Clearly, I was soon in a position to begin to assess pupil
learning needs, social needs, the possible resourcing needs and
the quality of teaching and organization in meeting these needs.
Having pre-stated that it was my aim to enable all staff to
participate in the process of beginning to identify curriculum
priorities for subsequent development, this early class-based
involvement enabled specific discussion to occur between myself
and individual teachers, grounded upon the immediacy of the
classroom experiences. However, it will also be clear that
generalization from specific classroom discussion following a
particular lesson or session can be problematic. I therefore
decided to publish an explicit agenda for discussion, focusing
upon four key issues. These were:

1. Continuity—in terms of curriculum continuity, continuity

of pupil experience, and continuity of school and classroom
organization and routines.

2. Our Expectations of pupils and the relationship between

this and our perception of their needs. Indeed, what processes
operated in our teaching to enable us to build a picture of
individual or collective pupil needs?

3. How were we making Assessments of pupils at both a formal

and informal level?

107
A.J.Richardson

4. Identifying exactly what we were aiming to achieve through

our organization of the classroom and school and our
teaching.

It also seemed to me that it was vital that a structure and

setting for professional communication within the school was
established and seen to operate effectively. Under previous
administrations, staff professional discussion had been rather
ad hoc. More formal discussions, say at staff meetings, had
generally taken place at lunchtimes, without an explicit
organization, and tended to focus upon issues peripheral to
teaching and learning in classrooms, such as sports day or the
Christmas concert. These meetings were not minuted. Following
individual discussion, I asked the deputy head to take
responsibility for convening and recording monthly whole-staff
meetings. It was decided that these meetings would profit from
being properly run with a prepub-lished agenda, open to staff
input, and that discussion should be recorded in the form of
notes and minutes. I also asked that staff should meet together
in newly created curriculum planning teams to prepare and review
work. From the outset, these meetings were organized on a quid
pro quo basis and were given high status by being structured
into the end of the school day. (I take half the school for a 25
minute assembly/story session whilst the junior staff start a
planning meeting. Infant and nursery staff also meet on a similar
basis.)
Distinct advantages have accrued by establishing curriculum
and staff meetings on this basis. Everybody knows why the meeting
is taking place, approximately how long it will last and, crucially,
all staff have had an opportunity to raise matters of concern by
putting them on the agendas. Moreover, starting the curriculum
meetings in school time means that a good 50 minutes to an hour
of discussion can take place by about four p.m. Over a period
of time the regularity of meeting has meant that important issues
have been properly addressed and vital decisions have been taken—
accelerating the professional work of the school. It is also important
that at least part of every meeting takes place without me, as
headteacher, being present. My absence states clearly my trust
and confidence in colleagues as professionals as well as providing
opportunities for discussions on matters that perhaps would
otherwise not get aired if I were present. In management terms,

108
 Whole-School Staff Appraisal in the Primary School

the regularity of these weekly meetings means that important

issues are addressed and returned to if no action has followed.
They provide a productive pressure upon me to support
developments suggested by colleagues. The most important
function of these meetings, though, is their role in facilitating
the process of critical and constructive professional discussion.
It enables shared meanings to develop and to be understood, and
facilitates the testing and examination of ideas which can lead
to changes in practice.
During the first term I was in post, I also established a senior
management team of the four scale III teachers and the deputy
head, whose function was to lead the professional work of the
staff in terms of curriculum review and development. This, in
fact, had a negative effect and served to polarize views within
the school and actually hindered development. I think this was
essentially due to lack of role definition and cohesion within the
team, which in turn was a function of my misinterpretation of
staff needs at this time. What the staff needed and wanted was
a common purpose and a feeling of working together, not working
in units, as this had been their past experience for the previous
several years. So faced with this I gently let the meetings drop
after the first couple of terms.
Now, clearly, much of this happened because I ‘pushed’ it.
It seemed to me that it was vital that for the school to develop,
time and opportunity needed to be provided for teachers to develop,
certainly within a structure which required that particular issues
be addressed. The structure needed to provide a learning
opportunity for the staff. This learning opportunity centred upon
the notion of ‘reflexivity’, that is looking critically and
professionally at our practice. This kind of development can require
a tremendous shift for many teachers who have traditionally
protected their autonomy by the avoidance of professional
discussion, especially in relation to how they actually teach.

Aims, objectives and review

By December of the autumn term of 1984, I produced a detailed

discussion paper concerned with aims and objectives which drew
upon my own observations and the assessments and emerging
issues that were beginning to be identified by staff. This discussion
was also informed by the availability within the school of
evaluation ‘guidelines’ such as GRIDS (Bolam et al., 1984) and

109
A.J.Richardson

Figure 7.1 Model for school development

Solihull LEAs ‘Green’ booklet (Solihull, 1980). Having said this,

only passing reference was made to these documents and they
certainly did not provide an immediately accessible means of
promoting and extending staff discussion. However, one or two
staff looked carefully at these materials and raised issues such
as the organization of posts of responsibility within the school.
The aims document emphasized the following model for future
development and provided a consistent and systematic structure
for organizing our professional discussions.
Clearly, within this process, lesson analysis based upon
observation of what is actually happening is essential. Indeed,
observation and lesson analysis is central to the evaluation and
appraisal process—it is the fulcrum of the whole process. At the
same time as this kind of more systematic planning was beginning
to be addressed I began individual discussions with staff in order
to try to identify what they saw as priorities for development.
These meetings also facilitated discussion about scale-post
responsibilities. This led to some agreed redefinition. The end

110
 Whole-School Staff Appraisal in the Primary School

Aims for the Headteacher

1. To supervise and manage the teaching and deploy resources

in such a way that children are taught efficiently and
effectively.
2. In cooperation with the school staff and the LEA Inspectors,
and Governing Body, to make explicit the school’s aims and
to see that the curriculum, teaching methods, classroom and
school organizations serve them.
3. To ensure that staff are provided with essential equipment
and resources in order to carry out their teaching, scale post
and extra curricular duties efficiently and effectively.
4. To enable the school to be kept in touch with educational
developments in the fields of nursery and primary
education.
5. To assist the professional development of teachers and
provide opportunities for school-based, LEA and national
in-service training.
6. To promote curriculum developments within the school and
to suggest and promote teaching strategies which fulfil the
school’s stated aims.
7. To promote continual curriculum evaluation and review in
the light of changing educational needs.
8. To ensure effective liaison with secondary schools.
9. To provide accountability to the Governing Body and the
LEA for the aims, organization, teaching methods, and
evaluation of the school.
10. To foster good relations with parents and the community
and to interpret the aims of the school to them.
11. To ensure the general welfare of all connected directly with
the school.
12. To keep records of the development of the school as an
educational institution.
13. To evaluate the work and progress of the school.

Figure 7.2 Aims for the headteacher

111
A.J.Richardson

Language Development Scale III Postholder

Aims
1. To assist the headteacher and the staff to make explicit and
interpret the stated aims of the school through the language
curriculum.
2. To enable the staff to fulfil the aims and objectives of the
language curriculum.
3. To advise the headteacher of the resource needs of the
school in the field of language development.
4. To review the effectiveness of programmes of work in
relation to the needs of the pupils and the school’s stated
aims and to advise the headteacher accordingly.
Objectives
1. To enable the staff to be kept abreast of developments in the
field of language teaching by:
(i) Personal example.
(ii) Informal and formal staff discussion.
(iii) The publication of internal discussion documents.
(iv) Working with members of staff in classrooms, assisting
teaching and establishing models of good practice.
2. To develop detailed classroom learning objectives and
programmes of work for all aspects of language work
within the school, towards the development of an explicit
language policy.
3. To develop the notion of ‘language across the curriculum’
as an integral part of the school’s work.
4. To advise the headteacher as to the resource requirements of
all aspects of language work throughout the school.
5. To encourage a continual re-examination and review of
programmes of work, teaching methods and curriculum
aims, in the light of changing educational needs.
6. To organize screening, testing and diagnostic procedures in
language throughout the school, in close consultation with
the headteacher and the post-holder for special needs.
7. To ensure effective liaison with secondary schools.
8. To be responsible for the care, maintenance, and storage of
all language materials and to establish a central language
resource area.

112
 Whole-School Staff Appraisal in the Primary School

9. To be responsible for the care, maintenance and storage of

all ‘library’ materials and to classify these materials using a
Dewey based system.
10. To develop child and parental assistance in running the
school’s library and bookshop and in the care and repair of
the stock.
11. To assist the headteacher in interpreting the aims of the
language curriculum to parents by:
(i) The running of curriculum workshops.
(ii) The involvement of parents in the school’s language
programme.
(iii) The publication of booklets for parents which assist and
advise parents about children’s development in
language.
12. To encourage and develop self-supportive learning by
enabling pupils to have access to the school’s language
resources and by making the aims of the language
curriculum explicit and intelligible to pupils.

Figure 7.3 Aims and objectives of a language development postholder

results of these sessions was a clearer view of staff perceptions

of priorities for development and the production of negotiated
and detailed job descriptions. Figures 7.2 and 7.3 are examples
of this ‘end’ result—my own and a scale III post-holder’s job
description.
A logical consequence of the creation of job definition was
the self-setting by staff of termly targets for professional work.
I asked that these targets should match with our agreed priorities
as well as being realistic and achievable. These targets, like the
job descriptions, were and are published and circulated to all
staff, so that the whole process of what we are saying we are
intending to do is made explicit to everybody.

Curricular developments

An interesting and parallel development within the school at the

same time was the focusing upon pupil involvement in self-
assessment and the planning of work. During the spring term
1985, the school was successful in obtaining funding from SCDC

113
A.J.Richardson

to promote this work. Since this time the school has begun to
develop a detailed record-keeping and profiling system which
actively structures pupil involvement into the process of evaluation
and planning.
In its simplest form, our nursery pupils are being encouraged
by teaching staff, NNEBs and parental helpers to use language
to plan out a small section of their work or play or an activity
in which they are about to take part—for example, using sand
and water in a particular way. After carrying out the activity,
children are encouraged to talk about—to review in a simple way—
what they have been doing.
In main school classes, pupils have regular opportunities to
review their work and progress through a record system which
structures their involvement. The records have been constructed
so that key aspects of the work programme are made explicit to
children in a way appropriate to their level of understanding.
Mathematics and topic work records for example, consist of a
series of ‘I can do’ or ‘I understand’ statements which in
mathematics are linked to resource references. All pupils
throughout the school also compile a work profile—a personal
file—which comprises a selection of the child’s own work which
is selected jointly by the teacher and pupil.
The important point about the records and the personal files
is that they provide systematic opportunities for teachers and
children to review learning. This clearly facilitates the processes
of future planning by teachers as well as raising the status of
the learner—the child.
Within the context of the development of evaluation and
appraisal within the school, this curriculum innovation has tended
to reinforce the positive climate for the processes of self-evaluation
and self-criticism which were increasingly being directed towards
improving the learning experiences of children through translating
our explicit curriculum aims into reality.

Teacher appraisal

The initial period of whole-school review, the setting of agreed

aims, the redefinition of posts of responsibility, the production
of job descriptions and the early initiation of self-evaluation
systems for pupils, took about fourteen months to establish. By
November 1985, I had already had a couple of target review
meetings with individual members of staff. These meetings were

114
 Whole-School Staff Appraisal in the Primary School

quite successful and useful in that they enabled specific discussion

to occur, related to scale-post responsibilities and, inevitably, some
attention was paid to learning issues. The trouble was that the
aspects of the discussions that related to teaching and learning
were rather vague—issues of teaching methodology were not
addressed head-on but skated around. It seemed to me, and to
two other members of staff, that we should attempt to make these
review sessions more specifically focused upon teaching and
learning—as in the event, scale-post responsibilities could be
discussed with ease and focus. The discussions needed to be more
concerned with the actual practice of teaching. To attempt to meet
this need I decided to discuss the teacher appraisal issue with
all staff individually and subsequently produced a short document
which attempted to identify a possible ‘agenda for discussion’.
This document (Figure 7.4) was then quite openly considered
at the weekly curriculum team meetings.
Staff welcomed this initiative, I think, partly because it did
seem to be the logical extension of what we were already doing
and partly because many staff colleagues could see that the
appraisal ‘writing was on the wall’. At this point I decided to
invite my school inspector/adviser to appraise me as I felt that
the future success of our developing evaluation scheme would
partially depend upon me being subject to the same appraisal
pressures as the teaching staff. An agenda for discussion, based
largely around the initial discussion document, was agreed at a
full staff meeting and appraisal discussions were fixed to take
place in school time. It was also agreed that outcomes of the
discussion would not be recorded and that the key purpose of
the discussion was to facilitate a self-evaluation process for both
the member of staff and me as head. In my view it is vital that
agreement should exist about the range of the appraisal discussion
well in advance. Moreover, it is clear that without a mutually
agreed willingness to focus on the issues arising from the agenda,
attempts to arrive at a shared meaning of the evaluation and
appraisal process would be difficult to achieve.
Although there was some staff anxiety in taking part in this
formal discussion, all staff agreed that once the appraisal
discussion itself actually started, they felt they were able to
relax and begin to address themselves to important issues in a
confidential context. Essentially, the discussion provided an
opportunity for colleagues to express what they thought about
their jobs, the children they were teaching, and organizational

115
A.J.Richardson

Appraisal and Evaluation

Much has been said about the appraisal of teachers in recent

months. In this school we are already establishing a system
for evaluating the work we do. So far we have:

Developed detailed curriculum aims and objectives for the

school which have been agreed by all staff.
Established job descriptions for posts of responsibility.
Set ourselves termly ‘targets’ for professional work (post-
holders).

It seems to me that we could now begin to think about ways

of extending and clarifying this process. The following areas
could be considered by staff for review, evaluation or
appraisal:
1. The extent to which we have met our post-holder
targets.
2. The effectiveness of our planning and preparation.
3. The effectiveness of our teaching in relation to the
needs of the children and the aims of the school.
4. The extent to which the aims of the school are being met.
5. The need to revise and/or develop our aims.

We need to consider the following issues

a) The aims of the process and result of such an appraisal
or review.
b) Who should ‘do’ the reviewing?
c) The form the appraisal should take, e.g. written,
verbal?
I would welcome your comments before the December staff
meeting.

AJR November 1985

Figure 7.4 Appraisal and evaluation

116
 Whole-School Staff Appraisal in the Primary School

aspects of the school. Many staff commented that they enjoyed

hearing my views about their work within this formal context
and that they appreciated the opportunity to sit down with me
and have an undisturbed conversation about their views of their
work and the school. The fact of the matter is that although we
might think we are providing staff with opportunities to discuss
their work at other times, the reality of school means that very
often these unplanned conversations never really develop
sufficiently to permit the kind of detailed professional discussions
that had begun to happen in the appraisal sessions.
From my perspective in conducting the interview, I wanted
the process to be comfortable and as non-threatening as possible
for colleagues. I was therefore as positive in my comments as I
could be and tried my hardest to listen rather than talk. Getting
these initial interviewing strategies right is absolutely essential
if you as a manager are really going to be able to encourage
staff to relax enough to be genuinely honest with themselves.
In February 1986, following a staff review of the processes
and practices we had thus far adopted, the ‘agenda for discussion’
was extended and six key areas were identified as relevant for
professional discussion. These were:
Planning and preparation
Teaching
Special responsibilities
INSET needs
Career development
Suggestions for improving the school

Each of these categories was explicitly broken-down into several

sub-sections. For example, under planning and preparation the
following areas were seen to be relevant:

(a) Forecasts of classwork to be covered each half term.

(b) Contributions to infant and junior meetings.
(c) Contributions to staff meetings.
(d) Contributions to informal discussion about classwork.
(e) The teachers’ assessment of the usefulness of individual
and team planning.
(f) Use of resources.
(g) Record keeping and pupil profiling.

117
A.J.Richardson

Figure 7.5 Recording the appraisal

118
 Whole-School Staff Appraisal in the Primary School

Under ‘Teaching’ such issues were considered as, curriculum

match, classroom organization, relationships with children, class
control and discipline and the appropriateness of teaching and
learning ‘style’. And out of the discussion about these categories,
the need for some sort of record of the appraisal discussion
emerged. Through individual discussions with all staff, the kinds
of areas and comments that might usefully be recorded were
considered and a draft document was presented to a full staff
meeting for discussion. The final document (Figure 7.5) is very
open but reflects where we as a staff are currently in the
developmental process of constructing a professionally useful
appraisal/evaluation scheme. Access to the document is strictly
controlled and the whole process is confidential to the member
of staff and me. (The ‘sample’ given in Figure 7.5 has been written
especially for this chapter.)
I think it is likely that our record will evolve to become more
detailed but I strongly feel that the rating scales common to some
American teacher appraisal schemes are totally inappropriate for
the kind of dynamic, human relationship context within which
teaching, learning and staff development operates in schools.

Principles, strategies and questions

Whatever teacher evaluation and appraisal does, it should not

dehumanize management. I believe that properly developed, over
time, in cooperation with teachers, and certainly not imposed,
it will act as a vehicle to enhance professionalism, raise the status
of teachers and headteachers and improve learning for pupils.
Essentially, teacher appraisal should be about providing systematic
opportunities for teachers to learn from their practice in order
to improve learning for pupils. It should also be about raising
morale, the recognition of hard work and success, and the creation
of self-supporting development structures within school for
teachers.
Headteachers and senior teachers involved in the establishment
of evaluation and appraisal in schools need to develop their
interpersonal skills in order to facilitate the learning processes
that arise through such professional discussion. We need to find
ways of structuring time into our work to enable professional
issues to be handled. Certainly, in the primary school sector we
have not been good at this. Planning and preparation time is given
generally low status and opportunities to develop evaluation

119
A.J.Richardson

processes and systems are uncommon. We need to raise the status

of planning and preparation by altering both the structure of school
organization and by developing away from the dominant ideology
of teacher autonomy. Collegiality needs to be created so that staff
within a school can have real opportunities to think about and
influence learning.
Developing the processes of teacher appraisal and evaluation
within Green Lanes has raised a number of important problems.
These problems are concerned with management, organization,
and the means by which pedagogy and learning is assessed. How
can the primary school be organized and staffed to enable teachers
to have opportunities to take part in whole-school evaluation?
Who should initiate the processes? Who should the results of
evaluation and appraisal be known to? How can pupils contribute
to the evaluation of learning within the school as it effects them?
What should the role of the governing body of parents be? Indeed,
what roles are possible or desirable? If a national system of teacher
appraisal is introduced, are schools and LEAs equipped to derive
benefits—or will the results of top-down appraisal, as an apparent
accountability exercise, be wholly irrelevant? Such issues may
well be resolved during the next two years when the DES responds
to the findings of the pilot schemes currently being established
and sponsored. What is clear, however, is that schools which have
taken the opportunity to consider the implications and
consequences of evaluation and appraisal, as a natural development
of their professional work, will be in a sound position to respond
positively and forcefully to challenges that may come from
Governments in the future. Two key questions should be
considered:

• Has the process enabled a teacher to feel valued, professional

and successful?
• Has learning improved for the pupils as a result?

120
Chapter 8

The Introduction of Staff

Appraisal to a Newly
Amalgamated School
Jenny Morris

Introduction

The amalgamation of three schools would not normally be

considered a propitious occasion for the introduction of staff
appraisal: nevertheless, amalgamation, like drowning, concentrates
the mind exceedingly and in this case focused it positively on
the morale and well-being of staff. School closure and the
redesignation of staff had been trauma enough; but the rapid
development of a new learning environment and the welding
together of three sets of staff from schools of differing philosophies,
posed particular problems which had to be solved as soon as
possible for the sake of the pupils if no-one else.
It was crucial that members of staff fully understood the
philosophy and objectives of the new school; they had to
understand, and, hopefully, be reconciled to their new designations;
and above all they had to feel that they were important, integral
parts of a totally new, but immediately viable community. Anxiety
and stress manifested themselves in antagonism, indifference and
cynicism on the part of people who had been under ‘threat’ of
change for several years, and who now felt their worst fears would
be realized. Few members of staff had worked in a school of
1,500 pupils, two of the existing schools were single-sex
establishments, the third school had not had selected pupils or
a sixth form. The new building was large and as imposing as
the situation itself, and few members of staff felt content at the
prospect of such apparently gigantic changes.

121
Jenny Morris

My area of responsibility had been described as staff development

and clearly this held part of the key to successful amalgamation,
but only if the development was coherent, valued and appropriate
to both staff and school. It was typical of the amalgamation syndrome
that the majority of members of staff felt grossly undervalued.
They had had no wish for amalgamation and felt their opinions
had been overruled. The schools to which they had given so much,
were to be closed, thus their efforts and expertise had been judged
to be wanting. In vain, did officers and senior staff point out the
realities upon which the amalgamation decision was based. Staff
perceptions were centred on personal and collective failure, lack
of appreciation, and uncertainty of worth.
Uncertainty was fundamental to the entire operation, including
my own approach and area of responsibility. I had read the James
Report which virtually invented the term ‘professional tutor’, yet
in spite of its recommendation that no school should be without
one, within the immediate time span, I failed to find one. I later
realized that this shy, retiring species was, in fact, almost extinct
before it had properly come into existence. The timing, the habitat
and the necessity all demanded the generation of a whole new
genus of adviser/managers, but the vital financial spark had not
been struck. Even today, I believe I am the only officially designated
professional tutor in the area (if not in the county at that time?).
I had read a number of books which included staff development
as a chapter within the main topic, but practical advice was virtually
impossible to come by. Staff appraisal was a phrase used to describe
some nebulous process whereby a teacher’s ‘development’ or
‘progress’ might be ‘measured’. Clearly the two had to be linked,
but the method had yet to be discovered and time was short. The
final package was the result of a very wet half term and fourteen
years’ experience as a deputy head. I would not claim to have
invented the wheel— as I discovered during the following year
that others had had thoughts along similar lines before and after
me—but this wheel was mine. It was greatly reassuring to have
the encouragement of the staff development advisory team from
a nearby county to whom I was later introduced, but at the beginning
I felt very isolated within my new role.
As professional tutor I saw my first responsibilities, in essence,
as being:

1. To reassure staff of their value to the new school, and, where

possible, soothe individual anxieties.

122
 Introduction of Staff Appraisal to a Newly Amalgamated School

2. To ensure that staff understood the philosophy of the new

school.
3. To ensure that staff appreciated and understood their
individual roles.
4. To discover the professional needs of individuals.
5. To discover the training needs of the new departments.
6. To involve individuals as much as possible with the planning
and organization of the new establishment.
7. To discover individual strengths and weaknesses.
8. To encourage commitment at all levels.

The only way in which these aims might be achieved would be

by personal, individual contact, given time, quiet and unthreatening
surroundings. Simplistically, if you want answers, you have to
ask questions and listen carefully to what you are told. It was
also clear that these eight objectives were so significant that the
questions should be asked on a regular basis—thus was created
staff professional review.

Staff professional review

Eight months before the new school opened its doors, a programme
of individual discussion was begun. Every member of staff with
a role to play at Ashlawn School was invited for a personal
discussion with the designated professional tutor. Approximately
80 teachers were involved; invitations were informal and personal,
but time had to be negotiated within the three existing schools
so that staff could feel relaxed and unhurried. Any further pressures
had to be avoided at all costs. A hasty, interrupted discussion
would have been worse than none at all. Over-sensitive members
of staff needed a calm atmosphere and time in which to express
their real anxieties and expectations. It says much for the
professional commitment and concern of the senior staff in the
three existing schools that such time was given. The head and
staff of the school at which I was deputy head, were unfailingly
supportive and, I believe, felt that by indirectly ‘hosting’ the staff
of the other schools, they were contributing considerably to the
well-being of the new, as was indeed the case.
The word ‘interview’ had been carefully avoided as being
loaded, and even sinister, at that time. Discussions, therefore,
were voluntary, though in practice, all but two members of staff
accepted their individual invitations. There was no documentation

123
Jenny Morris

at this time, but the discussions were carefully structured

beforehand, to include: the eight objectives previously indicated,
an introduction to the idea of an annual staff review, and an
opportunity for individuals to introduce topics of their own
choosing. Most conversations lasted about 40 minutes, though
a number extended well beyond that. It was, I believe, advantageous
that I had been a deputy head in the area for some considerable
time and therefore enjoyed a certain status in the eyes even of
those with whom I had not yet worked. My job specification
was staff development with no obvious curriculum or pastoral
responsibilities; demonstrably I had no axe to grind; my questions
were seen therefore as being non-threatening and carrying no
loaded implications, an important factor if honesty is to play a
real part in staff appraisal. Careful staging of interviews, a sincere
concern for the well-being of individuals, and a realization that
I was seeking to negotiate rather than impose, all served to make
the discussions fruitful and generally satisfying.
Initial reactions to the idea of such discussions varied from
cynical disbelief in their value (or even existence!) to openly
expressed pleasure that ‘someone’ was going to listen, at last…
Significantly, it became clear that for the majority of teachers
this was the first opportunity they had been given to discuss
their job at length with someone who had the status to negotiate
desirable changes, but who was in no way judgmental. For most
people there had been very few occasions when their professional
opinions had been consulted as individuals, and even fewer
occasions when they had been asked how they felt about their
working situation. Staff had given me details of their
qualifications and teaching service, and it had a salutary and
saddening effect to see well-qualified, long-serving, dedicated
members of the profession expressing pleasure and gratitude
for a 40 minute discussion relating to those interests closest
to their professional concern. The term ‘pastoral care for staff’
was coined by one such member of staff who had spent many
years caring for the welfare of his pupils, and this, I believe,
is as good an expression of the true motivation toward appraisal
as we are likely to discover. If that is, indeed, the genuine
foundation upon which an appraisal system is based, then
members of staff need have no anxieties about it.
A great deal of very useful information was forthcoming from
this first round of discussions. Unexpected talents and interests
were revealed and qualifications and expertise hitherto unknown
became apparent. For example, one music teacher had, outside

124
 Introduction of Staff Appraisal to a Newly Amalgamated School

Figure 8.1 Review: round one

school, a great involvement with multi-cultural education; a

languages teacher had acquired not only an interest, but real
expertise in devising exam timetables; a head of year produced
some excellent ideas on the development of the library into a
whole-school resource centre; a member of the special needs
department had an interest and skill in teaching communication—
this was to be encouraged, and resulted in a communications
module to be used throughout the school. Unknown to anyone,
a number of members of staff had completed courses on pastoral
care, counselling and active learning—all skills to be utilized
and passed on. Frequently, it appeared that individuals had attended
courses, and acquired skills that had not been fully utilized at
the time, and later had been overlooked. Anxieties were expressed
and a surprising number of misapprehensions needed correction.
In spite of great numbers of newsletters, etc. staff remained
uncertain of the objectives of the new school—clearly the weight
of paper compared very lightly to the personally spoken word.
In times of stress (and others!) people simply do not read what
they are given (especially in schools?) or they interpret as they
choose. A great effort had been made to inform staff of decisions
and plans, yet a number remained resolutely ignorant until they
were obliged to discuss specific issues on a personal level.
When introduced, the idea of an annual professional review
was greeted with unanimous approval, though a very small number
(four) indicated anxieties on behalf of ‘other’ people. Everyone
expressed agreement with the notion that individual consultations
were likely to prove useful not only to members of staff but the

125
Jenny Morris

school as a whole. Whether such universal approval would have

been achieved if the subject had been raised at a staff meeting,
for instance, I doubt very much. A mass meeting is not the best
of occasions to introduce a matter of such personal and individual
concern. As it was, each member of staff felt he or she had been
consulted and his/her opinions noted—a crucial factor in the
management of any global initiative.
At the end of each discussion a brief note was made concerning
interests, skills, possible career ambitions or current dissatisfactions
as well as wishes for further professional development. In some
cases targets were set for the time which would elapse before
the school opened, others were much longer in term. But clearly,
if the role of professional tutor was to retain credibility and the
implementation of professional review was to be seen as a practical
force in the management of the school, there had to be much
more than a series of pleasant chats. At first, there was little that
could be done, apart from informing designated heads of
department of staff anxieties or confusions, and encouraging
positive communication between staff. There had been the normal,
anticipated reticence between heads of department within the three
schools, and those designated who were still obliged to have a
foot in two camps. Consequently, the easing of communications
made a great deal of difference in the evolution of new curricular
and pastoral areas.
A number of teachers were far from happy with their
prospective roles and the chance to express these grievances
was felt by several to be a great relief, especially when the
new roles were considered in a positive light and attention drawn
to their proper value; if this could be reinforced by the initiation
of a responsibility-related task, aggrieved teachers were able
to begin the journey toward self-realization and the achievement
of work satisfaction. Often, members of staff simply needed
the stimulus of challenge that the objective observer could
perceive in the new role, and which the designated teacher had
been too anxious to appreciate at the time.
Even at this early stage, the groundwork was laid for future
initiatives. Teachers were introduced to others of differing status
and curriculum areas, who shared the same interests; and groups
were formed, which were to develop of their own volition into
working parties, creating programmes for communications and
media studies, the modular curriculum, pastoral developments
and others. These loosely formulated groups did much to foster
the ideal of ‘one’ staff, as well as encouraging the conviction

126
 Introduction of Staff Appraisal to a Newly Amalgamated School

that staff were not only to be consulted, but that they should
begin to take the responsibility of innovation.
There were a number of responsibilities which had not, at that
time, been allocated for one reason or another. Surprisingly, for
virtually every one of these tasks there was a member of staff
keen to take up the responsibility. Without individual discussions
many teachers, undoubtedly, would have failed to express their
interest, or if expressed, it might not have been noticed by the
appropriate people. Staff who wanted experience in pastoral work,
administration or curriculum development were thus given
opportunities they previously had only hoped for, and it was a
source of considerable satisfaction to all concerned when staff
and responsibilities could be thus easily reconciled. Indeed, there
was a phase when some members of staff imbued the professional
tutor with qualities more appropriate to the role of fairy godmother
than professional counsellor; however, as is always the case, there
are some wishes that no-one can cause to come true, and one
or two instances of apparent ‘failure’ kept the professional tutor’s
feet firmly on the floor. Staff development may be quite potent
magic on occasions, but miracles are still uncommon. Though
a certain level of satisfaction was achieved by virtually all members
of staff, there was undoubtedly a small number whose sole
consolation was self-expression, but this in itself appeared to
fulfil a long-felt need.
At the end of the discussions the professional tutor and,
therefore, the senior management team, was in possession of a
wealth of information. This information was:

(a) To act as a guide for a staff development programme for

the first year.
(b) To inform accurately about the need to renegotiate certain
areas of responsibility.
(c) Focus management attention on the organization of the
pastoral structure.
(d) To assist and guide management decisions during that
first difficult year after amalgamation; and
(e) To give an invaluable guide to probable staff reactions
to different initiatives.

Another by-product was an appraisal of the skills required by

the professional tutor. Patience, good organization and the ability
both to communicate and listen were only part of the job. It was
necessary to have a clear picture of the structure of the school

127
Jenny Morris

and a deep understanding of its principles and management. It

was necessary to be able to negotiate at all levels and remain
encouraging and positive, regardless of expressed anxieties or
antagonisms. It was also important to know what was possible
and what should not be considered as likely or desirable. Discretion
was the paramount virtue, combined with the ability to assess
that which was genuinely confidential and that which was intended
to be passed on.
Two months after the opening of the school, the county
authorities requested a bid for funding the school-based, in-service
training. This was not only heaven-sent as a staff development
opportunity, it was to provide the proof that staff professional
review worked. A programme based on already perceived needs
was funded and put into practice. Not only was it greatly
appreciated by the participants, but it gave many members of
staff the opportunity to pass on their acquired expertise in a number
of areas. Without review, neither the needs nor the providers of
training would have been recognized.

In-Service Training included:

(a) Training for staff interested in teaching pupils with special

needs.
(b) Pastoral care and counselling.
(c) Information technology.
(d) Visits to other schools.
(e) Review workshops.
(f) Reference-writing workshop.
(g) Management workships, etc., etc.

The second professional review

The second round of professional review required a more formal

structure if ideas, requirements and expertise were not to be lost.
A file was established for each member of staff; it contained a
summary of the individual’s service record and staff development,
notes on the original conversation were included. This file was
totally confidential, being in the safekeeping of the professional
tutor who would allow no access without the expressed permission
of the member of staff it concerned. Surprisingly, the majority
of staff felt this to be of little significance. Clearly, professional

128
 Introduction of Staff Appraisal to a Newly Amalgamated School

review held few fears for them, though a very small minority
reacted very strongly to the idea of confidentiality and needed
considerable reassurance. Also significant was the fact that an
increasing number of staff referred to the process as appraisal,
though great care had been used throughout to stress the review
aspect of the procedures. Once again, participation was voluntary
and the majority of staff took part, though Union pressure meant
that some, though willing, felt unable to participate.
The core of the programme consisted of 4 documents: 1 to
be completed by the individual member of staff; 2A to be
completed in conjunction with the head of department/faculty;
2B to be completed in conjunction with the head of the year; 3
to be completed in conjunction with the professional tutor.
In each case, if an individual preferred he or she could choose
another member of staff, e.g. second in department for these
discussions—though this option was not, in fact, taken up.
Heads of department were reviewed by the curriculum overseer,
that is, the member of the senior management team, responsible
for an oversight of that subject area. Deputies were reviewed
by another member of the senior management team and the head;
the head being reviewed by a senior county adviser. In the future,
the head might be reviewed by another head, and adviser, and a
more junior member of staff in order that there might be feedback
from those being managed.
A variety of formats had been evaluated, including a number
of ‘tick-in-the-right-column’ questionnaires. These were all
discarded as being too confining and the eventual formula was
as follows:

Document 1
Question 1 referred to both teaching and pastoral roles and asked
the reviewee to discuss those aspects which were felt to have
been most successful. Question 2 referred to areas of
dissatisfaction. Question 3 related to professional development.
Question 4 asked if further help or advice would have been
useful. Question 5 discussed objectives to be set by the individual
for him/herself. Question 6 asked if help would be required to
fulfil these objectives, and if so, in what way could the school
and/or staff assist; and the last question discussed personal
aspirations.

129
Jenny Morris

Documents 2A and B
Followed a similar parallel pattern.

Document 3
Largely a summary of objectives and INSET requirements.
It should be noted that documents 2A and B referred directly
to a job specification—rather upsetting if the reviewee did not
have one! As the creation of job specifications had been one of
the subjects embraced by the first round of talks, few difficulties
were, in fact, encountered. Needless to say, these days the precise
nature of each job specification must be carefully negotiated for
purposes other than appraisal, but an examination of the exact
nature of individual roles is useful for both the staff and those
who seek to ‘manage’ them.
Obviously, one of the biggest problems was simply time. Each
of the discussions took approximately 30 minutes and each head
of year or faculty had approximately 11 members of staff for
whom he or she was responsible. The professional tutor was
responsible for organizing the timing in a general sense, and
kept control of documents for the sake of confidentiality and
in order to ensure no-one was missed, but the deputy responsible
for the operation of staff cover had to be clear what his priorities
were, and one decision had to be that the head’s review was
seen by the head as being of sufficient importance, that during
the summer term it took precedence over other demands on staff
non-teaching time. The fifth year leaving made life easier in
that respect and the time thus available was virtually given over
to staff review. Needless to say, without the head’s positive
support, the operation of any scheme of appraisal is virtually
impossible. Not only does it become inoperable in the practical
sense, but if there is resistance from the head on philosophical
or other grounds, then perceived changes or initiatives will not
occur and any possible satisfactions will be lost; the programme
loses credibility and becomes yet one more target for the staff
room cynics. The review process took approximately 6 hours
of staff time in total per person; the professional tutor using
roughly 3 hours per member of staff in organization, discussion
and follow-up.
Once again, this round of discussions yielded valuable
information, some of which was very gratifying indeed. The great
majority of staff had, for the most part, settled comfortably in
their new roles, and were more than satisfied by the challenge

130
 Introduction of Staff Appraisal to a Newly Amalgamated School

Figure 8.2 Review: round two

and stimuli these roles, and the new environment offered. The
staff development programme was not only appreciated but was
beginning to pay dividends in greater confidence, improved skills
and a unity of commitment and purpose which had previously
been lacking. There was also a marked improvement in individual
self-image.
Members of staff had not simply been told that they were
valued, but had been encouraged to take initiatives, devise
development programmes and create their own opportunities
for improvement. This paid handsome dividends in improved
self-confidence and motivation. However, the second round of
the review had taken on a new dimension; one which had not
existed in the preliminary stage. The school was actually in
existence, so members of staff knew the realities of their situation,
but further than that, were now discussing these realities with
their immediate managing colleagues. The professional tutor
was no longer a filter (or barrier) between heads of department
and other members of staff, or between heads of year and their
pastoral teams. The discussions were direct, though hopefully
not confrontational and not all heads of year and faculty had
prepared themselves properly for this new situation, though most
handled it admirably with practice.
Appraisal is very much a two-way process, the individual having
the right to express opinions about the management of the
establishment without fear of ‘reprisals’, and all staff exercised
that right in a constructive and thoughtful way. Thus a number

131
Jenny Morris

of organizational changes were made and procedures modified;

which not only satisfied the critics but which were clearly the
result of staff-motivated initiatives. Perhaps this is yet another
reason why the head and deputies of a school must have a clear
commitment to appraisal and a willingness to listen. The
opportunities are presented for good management practice, but
sometimes it takes courage to change traditionally accepted
procedures.
Once again, the staff development programme produced itself,
while the door was opened for a number of interesting changes
of responsibility. The school, like any other, had a number of
vacancies to fill during the year, as well as operating a policy
of job-rotation, so that, in a falling-roll situation, it was very
useful to be aware, in advance, of individual interest in different
responsibilities. Opportunity arose for a head of year to assume
the responsibility for the library and resource centre; the deputy
who was head of upper school assumed responsibility for
curriculum planning; the second in the special needs department
assumed responsibility for the oversight of students within the
school; the assistant to the first deputy took responsibility for
the development of pupil profiling. Where promotion points are
concerned, the job is clearly a subject for interview, but a member
of staff indicating interest and preparedness to train for a post
before it exists is clearly concerned and well-motivated and
deserves careful consideration.
However, one difficulty manifested itself quite quickly during
this second round of professional review: the skills necessary
for an in-depth, constructive discussion were not necessarily
those previously required by good heads of year, and heads of
faculty. When returned, the written documents varied
considerably. One head of year produced perceptive, sensitive
reports with imaginative and stimulating recommendations for
further development, having had structured yet relaxed
discussions which had clearly generated a great deal of interest
and enthusiasm within each member of his pastoral team. At
the other end of the scale, as one member of staff, rightly
aggrieved, expressed herself, ‘my entire year’s work was
dismissed in one line…’ and ‘we had a nice chat, but…’. Clearly,
such a disparity of skill and practice would do little to enhance
the reputation of review as a motivating, organizational force.
Accordingly, a review workshop was arranged for all heads of
year and heads of faculty. This was intended:

132
 Introduction of Staff Appraisal to a Newly Amalgamated School

(a) To strengthen the perceptions of review as a management

tool.
(b) To re-inforce the understanding of the middle manager’s
role.
(c) To remind pastoral and curricular heads of their
responsibilities with regard to the professional development
of staff within their care.
(d) To develop awareness of the need for interview skills.
(e) To help develop those skills.

This proved to be a very valuable experience for all concerned.

It was the first occasion when all head of year and faculty came
together with a common purpose, concerned solely with a concept
relating only to the new school. In itself, it was a useful,
interesting afternoon, generally much appreciated and enjoyed.
For some, the idea of management training within the school,
and by the school, partly in school time, was a novelty, yet it
set a tone for future training which was invaluable. Not only
were managers being treated according to their status, they were
learning, together, to handle a new, clearly valuable instrument
for better organization. As one head of faculty wrote in a later
report on the workshop. ‘I very much appreciated being treated
as though I were truly a manager. It’s no good telling me I’m
important, if I’m treated like an office-boy. Yes, I did enjoy
the atmosphere and the refreshments—not just because I liked
the cakes, but because they showed that I and my colleagues
were worth taking the trouble over.’ Hopefully, some skills were
learned as well! Certainly, the quality of both discussions and
reports improved considerably.
Another workshop was held for staff in charge of smaller
departments, and assistant heads of year, with similar results,
and a further, slightly different workshop is planned for other
members of staff who have indicated a wish, simply to know
more about appraisal, or who hope, in the future, to have a direct
involvement in the process itself. Obviously, the greater the number
of opportunities for training, the more involved and confident
staff become, but, as with the introduction of appraisal, such
training is clearly more successful in fairly small groups.

133
Jenny Morris

Classroom performance evaluation

From this second round of discussions emerged, perhaps not

surprisingly, a request for classroom performance evaluation.
Though this was clearly desirable, I had hesitated to introduce
such a principle without careful planning, and this is where a
structured appraisal programme had again proved its worth.
During the life of the school it had become common practice
for classroom ‘visitors’ to be encouraged. Curriculum overseers
regularly visited the classes of those members of staff within
their designated areas; team teaching was a frequent practice;
pupil-tracking and curriculum surveys all served to promote
an ‘open door’ policy, which meant that the idea of classroom
performance evaluation was both a logical progression and a
reasonable appendage to a general review process. There was
no stigma attached to having a visitor, and no sinister undertones.
Indeed, visitors were made welcome and often invited to comment
on what they had seen and heard. Individual discussions about
classroom evaluation had produced very encouraging responses,
many members of staff seizing quite eagerly upon the idea and
urging that it be adopted. Yet if such a procedure had been
suggested in an open staff meeting, I doubt whether its passage
would have been anything like so easy—there seems to be an
‘aura’ of imposition about such situations, which cannot be
present in individual discussions, added to which, of course,
there is the opportunity to listen to the feelings and opinions
of all staff, as opposed to hearing the responses of only the
most vociferous.
A series of questionnaires was devised, relating to classroom
evaluation, and offered to a number of ‘volunteers’ who completed
the forms on their own behalf, as a self-evaluation document.
Once again, the ‘tick-in-the-box’ format was discarded by
unanimous decision, in favour of a series of questions relating
to performance, preparation, relationships, etc., which required
a written answer. This questionnaire will be offered to staff during
the next round of review as an ‘optional extra’, and has been so
constructed that it may be self-evaluative, or the member of staff
can invite whomever he or she wishes to perform the evaluation
after visiting one or a number of lessons.
Embarking on the third round of appraisal, is, therefore,
comparatively painless: a letter is sent to all staff, reminding them
of procedures, and those unfamiliar with the documents, etc. have
a chance to discuss the scheme individually before it begins. Sadly,

134
 Introduction of Staff Appraisal to a Newly Amalgamated School

teacher unions are not entirely supportive of our efforts and some
colleagues will participate in only a limited fashion, nevertheless,
the principle will have been upheld, that every member of staff
has the opportunity to discuss their personal professional
development with a senior member of staff, even if complete
participation is deemed impossible for some.

Conclusions

Even in spite of, or because of, amalgamation and current low

morale in the profession, appraisal is demonstrably one of the
most valuable management tools as yet devised for the creation
of a commited, contented staff—if it is used properly, with the
right attitudes and by the right people. But it must not be forgotten
that appraisal can be a powerful instrument with a very sharp
edge, and the same implement can create either a masterpiece
or a heap of dead wood, depending on who wields it. Lack of
genuine sympathy and professionalism will render appraisal every
bit as fearsome as many teachers imagine it to be, as will lack
of commitment on the part of the head. Appraisal takes time,
resources and care; if the head is not willing to support the system
in every way, then such time and effort as is given will be wasted.
All the time and trouble that may be lavished on appraisal will
also be dissipated if the head and senior members of staff are
unwilling to listen to and learn from the results of appraisal
discussions. This is a two-way involvement and those who are
afraid to face criticism of their own management skills may find
appraisal a difficult procedure to follow. Needless to say, in the
near future, when staff appraisal becomes an acknowledged and
structured part of a teacher’s professional life, then some
commitment must be expected from LEAs. Whatever system is
used, if it is to have any meaning, then it will demand time, training
and resources and should not simply be added to the already
monumental list of deputy head’s duties. Clearly management
structures need careful examination in every school where it is
intended appraisal should occur. The member of staff responsible
for appraisal, should, I believe, have deputy head status, but should
not, in addition, be expected to be head of upper school or in
charge of curriculum planning, as well as staff-cover, duties,
school-fund, etc., etc., etc.

135
Jenny Morris

Handy hints for deputies OR What I have learnt in the last two
years

1. Make sure you know what appraisal or review really is.

You may be questioned closely on this topic.
2. Evaluate the commitment of your head to appraisal. The
head should be questioned closely on this topic.
3. Have clear in your mind the purposes of appraisal for
your school. Are you going through the motions? Is there
a genuine desire for a structured plan for staff and school
development?
4. Examine your own motives. Do you sincerely believe in
a policy of ‘pastoral care for staff’ or do you really
believe teachers should be able to look after themselves?
5. Do you have a clear understanding of the school’s aims?
You may, directly or implicitly, be questioned closely on
this topic.
6. Can you cope with criticism, direct or implied, whether
deserved or otherwise? Think carefully about your
answer.
7. What processes for both introduction and organization of
appraisal are right for your establishment? No two
schools are alike and, though you may be tempted,
simply ‘borrowing’ another scheme may be catastrophic.
8. Consider strategies for the introduction of appraisal very
carefully, before you begin (see chapter 5 !).
9. Are you prepared to learn and/or teach new skills?
10. Consider carefully the practicalities of the administration
and organization of your scheme. You will be questioned
closely on this topic.

Finally, if all goes well, prepare yourself to receive the gratitude

of members of staff who have, perhaps, waited years to express
their anxieties and hopes, to someone who actually listens and
who has their professional well-being at heart.

136
Chapter 9

Appraisal and the

Headteacher
Harry Moore

Introduction

During the 1980s there has been increasing discussion at many

levels; national, local and school based, relating to the appraisal
of both teachers and, more critically, headteachers. As we saw
in chapter 1, assumptions about the objectives of any system of
appraisal have been diverse, ranging from a highly threatening
‘weed out the weak’ and ‘more pay for the popular’ to attempts
at trying to make maximum use of the most important resource
we have in trying to improve the quality of children’s education.
The author’s experience in establishing an essentially formative
system of appraisal is intended to highlight important practical
aspects of the implementation of a scheme—in particular, the
vexed issue of the appraisal of the headteacher. ‘It sure as hell
would lose credibility if the principals weren’t evaluated!’ (A
quote from an American teacher.)

Formal and informal appraisal

Appraisal has always been present in an informal way. In their

various different ways, the head, staff, children, members of the
LEA, parents and the rest of the community make value judgements
about a school and, by implication, about the teaching staff and
head of the school. The 1980 Education Act, which gives parents
the right of choice of the school to which they would send their

137
Harry Moore

child has, inevitably, resulted in some parents making those value

judgements which are part of an informal appraisal. Questions
such as: ‘would you send your child to that school?’ represent
a highly simplified form of reaction appraisal by the consumer.
These apparently superficial forms of assessment should not be
dismissed. The minute by minute gathering of impression, views
and assessment form part of the contextual background against
which a formal appraisal can be made. Indeed, should we assume
that formal systems of appraisal are necessarily more valuable
than informal ones? Alexander, for example, questions two implicit
assumptions: first, that a formal procedure for evaluation
necessarily constitutes the most valid form and, second, that the
arrival of a formal system of evaluation necessarily heralds the
end of an era of non-evaluation (Alexander, 1984). Surely the
two are complementary. It is for the headteacher, in consultation
with other staff, to decide those aspects of the process which
need formalizing and those areas which will be informal.
This chapter, however, seeks to concentrate on issues relating
to a formal system of appraisal as envisaged in the 1986 Act,
on the assumption that it will be implemented. Following the
interesting initial study by the Suffolk Education Authority (Suffolk
1985), the Government initiated a £4 million programme spread
over three years in six local authorities. The early results of this
survey appear to indicate diverse approaches to the issues of
appraisal and it would be presumptious to assume the details of
any future measures, particularly with regard to the level of
prescription. Suffice it to note at this point that cooperation with
some form of staff appraisal is now part of both a head and a
teacher’s contract.

Appraisal in the context of whole-school development

A system of staff appraisal is not a discrete element in the

development of a school. It must be seen in the context of the
organization and the individuals who form it. The complex
interpersonal relationships which exist within any organization
are critical to the appraisal process, as is an evaluation of the
school’s aims and objectives and an assessment of the balance
between individual and institutional needs. Frequent references
are made to the centrality of the headteacher to a school’s
development and his/her style of leadership is therefore an
important factor. A predominantly autocratic head might find a

138
 Appraisal and the Headteacher

prescriptive form of appraisal most appropriate. The direction

of the school is retained within parameters which are defined
by the head, who controls the agenda for the appraisal process
as he or she does for all other aspects of the school’s development.
A staff who are totally dependent upon the head for direction
are, however, less likely to be in a position to make value
judgements about their own professional development since it
is not within their experience. Alternatively, a staff who are
expected to exercise professional judgement and assume
responsibilities appropriate to their experience and expertise are
more likely to be able to contribute to a form of appraisal based
on self-assessment. Blackburn envisaged a similar situation in
his assessment of secondary school appraisal. The appraisal
interview is a dialogue between two people in which the interviewer
enables the teacher to become the active agent in his/her own
appraisal (Blackburn, 1986). In this situation the appraisee is
being asked to question fundamental issues relating to the nature
of the job and the appraiser performs the function of a facilitator
who assists in identifying areas of strength which are deserving
of recognition, and those aspects of a person’s performance which
could be improved. Both elements become strong motivators;
the one in the form of praise, the other in understanding ways
to develop and the means by which that development can be
achieved. The sharing of difficulties experienced, and, realistic
aspirations for the future, are important for both the individual
and his or her place in the institution.

Who acts as the appraiser?

Central to the appraisal process, is the key question: who acts

as appraiser? Research evidence (Turner and Clift, 1985) suggests
that, at present, the majority of teachers would prefer that their
own interview is conducted by the head. There are, however, certain
practical implications for the head to consider, particularly with
regard to assessing a realistic commitment as to the number of
staff which it is possible to appraise. Primary schools currently
range in size from fewer than 50 pupils to larger than 500.
Consequently, whilst the majority of heads could consider a system
which allowed for the annual appraisal of all staff, it may be
necessary for heads of the largest primary schools to consider
whether it is realistic to conduct all interviews personally. In
Thomas’ view, reported in chapter 2, 20 is a reasonable maximum

139
Harry Moore

number to contemplate; the author’s experience would substantiate

this view. The extent and depth of any scheme will also impose
restrictions. A simple, annual, half-hour discussion about career
development may well not impose an onerous burden upon the
head but such discussions may take much longer as Bungard
showed in chapter 3.

Classroom observation

Can a system of appraisal which fails to address the teacher’s

classroom performance be really credible? I suspect that this issue
of classroom-based observation will be the most contentious aspect
when implementing a comprehensive system of appraisal. A return
to the concept of self-appraisal, already referred to, may be helpful
here. The head, in the role of facilitator, works alongside a
colleague and is able, both by a structured observation and through
the continuous informal assessment which is constantly being
made by a head who is involved in the work of the children, to
share in that colleague’s development. Aspects relating to the
organization and management of the class, discipline, curriculum
development and the children’s overall development can be dealt
with openly and honestly, and achievable goals established for
the following twelve months. Once again, an element of balance
between formal and informal methods of appraisal will exist.
The informal, day-by-day impressions gained as a result of the
head’s presence around the school, working alongside colleagues,
gives a basis to which the more formal observation may be related.
Any formal observation loses the aura of a performance since
it becomes part of a process of continuous assessment; another
piece of the jigsaw. A non-judgemental approach to the process
will also tend to encourage an open discussion of problems. It
is suggested that the head working in the role of a classroom
helper is more likely to be able to contribute effectively. Delaney
explored a similar approach in his assessment of teacher appraisal
at St Edmund’s School (Delaney, 1986). The development of a
system of self-appraisal, whereby the head and a member of staff
share the process, may evolve into a consideration of alternative
approaches involving other staff. For example, the appraisal of
a member of staff might identify a problem within the area of
language. The head will not, necessarily, be the most appropriate
person within the school to support the member of staff. Detailed
knowledge of the school’s language policy and its implementation

140
 Appraisal and the Headteacher

may well be most effectively dealt with by the language curriculum

coordinator. The appraisee, appreciating the need for development
which is the initial function of the head as appraiser, seeks the
guidance of the post-holder who will, in turn, be able to judge
the implications for whole-school evaluation in that particular
area. Shortcomings in the provision of resources are also
highlighted through the process.

Career development

Thus far, the concentration has been on the issues which relate
a system of appraisal to the function of the school. Another
important aspect of staff appraisal is the development of the
individual’s career. Turner and Clift found that an important
element in many schemes concerned the career development of
the individual (Turner and Clift, 1985). The realistic career
aspirations of a colleague are the legitimate concern of the head
if he is performing the function of leadership. It is important
that, for those who see their future within the school, appropriate
opportunities and challenges are available, and, for those who
seek promotion or further experience elsewhere, guidance is given
as to how to achieve such an aim. Although selection and
promotion are not an integral part of staff appraisal, it is inevitable
that aspects of the process relating to career development will
become part of a system for selection.

Negative elements

Much of the foregoing has been based on the assumption that

the overwhelming majority of teachers wish to improve their own
performance. Many of the issues raised depend for success, on
relationships of honesty and trust and the willing cooperation
of all involved. It would be foolish to ignore the possibility that
undertaking the implementation of so complex a procedure as
staff appraisal may result in individual conflict. This could result,
principally, for one of two reasons. First, is the rejection, by an
otherwise competent member of staff, of the appraisal process
because it represents a threat to that individual. One would hope
that, with sensitive handling of the situation over a period of
time, it is possible to solve the difficulty. Second, and more serious,
is when an appraisal involves dealing with an incompetent member

141
Harry Moore

Figure 9.1 The role of appraisal

of staff. One of the most negative and destructive elements to

emerge from the initial debate on appraisal is the suggestion made,
most notably by Sir Keith Joseph, that it is to ‘weed out the bad
teacher’. It is the author’s view that such a criterion would negate
all the positive aspects associated with the process. If an
incompetent member of staff is identified then it is a matter for
disciplinary proceedings; appraisal is emphatically not the
appropriate procedure to use!

Procedures—establishing objectives and job specifications

The implementation of the Education (No. 2) Act, 1986, Section

49 (Appraisal and performance of teachers) which came into
force on the 7 January 1987 will necessitate the introduction
of a set of procedures. The documentation appropriate to the
system of appraisal will require careful thought, and the head,
in consultation with colleagues, will have a central role in
formulating and evaluating an efficient and effective set of forms.
Figure 9.1 sets out a structure to clarify the place of appraisal
in the overall process, and shows the cyclical nature of this
process. The 1987 Contract of Employment (DES, 1987) with
all its implications for the future of the teaching profession, must

142
 Appraisal and the Headteacher

Job Specification
Class Teacher

To:
1. Provide an environment for all children which is rich and
varied.
2. Organise and deploy resources to suit the needs of all children.
3. Establish discipline based in mutual respect and the
development of self-discipline.
4. Be aware of the school’s agreed curricular aims and objectives
and develop each child accordingly.
5. Consult, as appropriate, with colleagues, support agencies
and parents.
6. Maintain suitable records and provide reports appropriate to
the school’s overall policy.
7. Always respond to the responsibilities embodied in ‘loco
parentis’.

Figure 9.2 A generic job specification

provide the starting point because it embodies binding contractual

obligations. Figure 9.2 sets out a typical, generic job specification
for a class teacher. It naturally follows from the contract since
it must satisfy the requirements of that same contract. The centrality
of the job specification to the process of appraisal is explored
in greater depth later in this chapter, when dealing with the
appraisal of the head.
Prior to the implementation of any system of staff appraisal,
it will be helpful to discuss, plan and prepare a set of guidelines
which are broadly acceptable to all colleagues. Figure 9.3 presents
a possible set of objectives. The involvement of colleagues in
discussing the objectives of appraisal may well help to remove
the element of threat in the early stages. The opportunity to
contribute to the agenda allows for greater understanding of the
place which appraisal has in staff development. Also, possible
pitfalls can be avoided by an open discussion of the difficulties
before implementation.

143
Harry Moore

Appraisal
To conduct an interview annually using the agreed form which
is to be signed by both head and colleague and kept for future
reference. This procedure will have the following objectives:
To:
1. Assist in self-appraisal of performance.
2. Acknowledge those aspects of work which have proved
successful.
3. Assist in the assessment of staff performance and future
development.
4. Assist in identification of strengths and weaknesses in the
management of the curriculum and classroom organization.
5. Establish realistic agreed objectives.
6. Agree on future action appropriate to the overcoming of
difficulties.
7. Agree on courses of action which need to be taken to facilitate
colleagues’ needs.
8. Assist in decisions involving resource commitments.
9. Help individuals understand the school’s organizational needs.
10. Assist in the identification of changes in responsibility as
and when appropriate.
11. Discuss a re-evaluation of job specifications.
12. Assist in career development.
N.B. Disciplinary matters have NO place in the appraisal
interview.

Figure 9.3 A set of objectives for staff appraisal

The appraisal interview and pro forma

Most systems of appraisal used by industry, commerce and the

major corporations revolve around the appraisal interview, and
the early investigation and resultant research into appraisal in
education appears to assume a similar approach. A suitable pro

144
 Appraisal and the Headteacher

Figure 9.4 A specimen pro forma

145
Harry Moore

forma will be necessary, both to allow for agreement as to the

aspects of the teacher’s role which will be discussed, and to
provide a record as a basis for subsequent appraisals. A specimen
pro forma is reproduced as Figure 9.4. Although the format would
allow for a directed style of appraisal, the author has used it in
a manner consistent with the concept of self-appraisal. During
the two weeks prior to the appointed time for the appraisal
interview both member of staff and head complete separate forms
which become the agenda for the interview, which would normally
last for approximately one hour. Following the interview both
forms are used by the member of staff who completes a further
form which reflects all aspects of the process. Head and member
of staff sign the form and it is filed for future reference. Forms
should be confidential and ownership lies with head and member
of staff.
Appraisal is not an end in itself but a means to an end. It will
be severely restricted in value if the process stops with the
completion of a form. The benefits will become apparent through
planned individual and group development. If measurable benefits
do not accrue the appraisal will be a pointless exercise. However,
without some system of appraisal, it is difficult to imagine how
development can be planned and realistic objectives established.
The appraisal interview requires careful planning. An
unstructured, badly planned and interrupted interview is unlikely
to achieve anything and may prove to be counterproductive.
Detailed planning is important since it is often the apparently
trivial which can destroy sensitive moments in a discussion. Allow
time to prepare; invest sufficient time to think about the important
issues to be addressed. Arrange seating so that it is conducive
to discussion; the existence of a desk between appraiser and
appraisee not only forms a barrier but may be perceived as a
threat. Allow time to talk; the pre-emptory termination of a
discussion because another appointment is imminent inevitably
leaves the appraisee feeling less important. Try to avoid
interruption; this is particularly difficult in school. The telephone
can be taken off the hook but some children are unstoppable!
The careful planning of the whole process lends credibility to
the serious issues which are under discussion.

146
 Appraisal and the Headteacher

Appraising the Head

The role of the head

Before any form of appraisal can take place, there must be a clear
definition of the role such as is provided by a job specification.
Reference was made to this point, earlier in this chapter, with regard
to staff appraisal, but the situation is no less applicable to the function
of headship. However, the author conducted a piece of research
(Moore, 1986) which elicited that, of twenty-six English LEAs
which advertised for primary school headteachers in January 1984,
only one provided a formal job specification. This situation is
substantiated in a forthcoming article by Hellawell. In some current
research, on the process of evaluation, he states:

One of my working hypotheses is that it is very difficult,

if not impossible, to appraise someone’s performance in
a job if the nature of that job is not carefully delineated
and there is not a degree of consensus about that
delineation. Certainly many large commercial and
industrial firms which have had systems of performance
appraisal for many years have gone to considerable
trouble to analyse what it is that ought to be appraised. A
job description, which specifies in great detail the aims
and objectives which the postholders are intended to
fulfil, are very common in such spheres. From the
sample of further particulars which I obtained over this
seven-week period it does appear that the jobs of
headteachers in primary schools are not, by and large,
delineated in such a way at present that their job
description could be used as a basis for performance
appraisal…it has to be stated that job descriptions were,
in almost all cases, conspicuous by their absence.
(Hellawell, 1986, p.1.)

However, the imposition of the Government’s Education (School

Teacher’s Pay and Conditions of Employment) Order (1987)
which sets a clear, contractual definition of the function of
headship, may well bring about rapid change. Clearly the new
Order will result in job specifications, which accord with the
requirements of the conditions becoming essential, since it is
the job specification which defines the responsibilities appropriate
to a particular headship. The extent and balance of these responsib

147
Harry Moore

Headteacher—Job Specification

1. To assume responsibility for the internal organization,

management and discipline of the school.
2. To act as chief executive and leading professional.
3. To direct policies within a broadly democratic and participative
style of leadership.
4. To consult with and report to Governors and LEA.
5. To consult with colleagues as appropriate in:
(i) Setting the aims, objectives and general ethos of the
school,
(ii) Establishing an environment conducive to the social
and educational development of the children,
(iii) Establishing short- and long-term goals.
(iv) Selecting, appointing and appraising of staff,
(v) Dealing with issues relating to boundary management.
(vi) Communicating with parents.
6. To be involved with children by teaching and taking assemblies,
as appropriate, dealing with problems of a disciplinary nature,
and handling the procedure for children requiring special needs.
7. To manage the non-teaching staff of the school.
8. The following areas of responsibility are currently delegated
to deputy heads.
(a) (i) Overall co-ordination and development of the
curriculum in consultation with curriculum
coordinators.
(ii) Children’s records.
(iii) School based INSET.
(b) (i) Coordination of the administration of the school
in consultation with heads of upper, middle and
lower school.
(ii) Communication.
(iii) Budgeting.

Figure 9.5 A job specification for the headteacher

148
 Appraisal and the Headteacher

ilities will vary according to the needs of each individual

institution.
The size of a school will, in particular, have implications for
the role which a head performs. Issues such as delegation and
the extent of any teaching commitment will affect the ways in
which the head is able to discharge his functions, especially those
with a full-time teaching commitment.
The translation of a definition of the role of headship into a
written job specification requires consideration. The head may
wish to deal with the matter personally. However, if the role of
the head is to be seen in the context of the needs of the school,
as outlined early in the chapter, discussion with colleagues may
be helpful. The job specification, (Figure 9.5) resulted from
extensive consultation between the author and both school deputies.
It is not intended as an exemplar but as one school’s response
to its needs. The discussions also resolved the role of the deputy
heads in that the job specifications are subject to annual review
and altered as appropriate, in the light of the school’s and
individual’s developmental needs.
The form for the appraisal of the head (Figure 9.6) will need
to relate to the job specification and take account of the particular
aspects of the head’s role. Consideration should also be given
as to whether the objectives established for staff appraisal are
applicable to the headteacher’s appraisal and, if not, the differences
should be acknowledged. For example, the existence of objectives
relating to teaching performance which might be seen as central
to teacher appraisal, may be deemed inappropriate in the case
of the head. Given the complexity of the role of the headteacher
it may be more valuable to focus on a few aspects of the job
specification rather than attempt to cover the entire role
superficially.

Who appraises the head?

This question appears to be, at present, a highly controversial

issue. The cause of this situation is not clear, and the uncertainty
is in contrast to the apparent unanimity expressed by teaching
staff that the head is the person who should conduct teacher
appraisal. The Suffolk team found that in only two of the schools
visited was any attempt made to appraise the head, and in both
cases deputy heads did the job. They also found wide ranging
alternative suggestions, including the school governors and the

149
Harry Moore

Headteacher’s Appraisal Form

1. How do you see yourself as a manager, organizer and

disciplinarian?
Strengths:
Areas for improvement:
2. Staff Development: Priorities for the immediate
future?
3. Curriculum Development: What do you see are the
successes and what improvements do you see are
needed in the immediate future?
4. What are your future plans for the school in terms of
aims, objectives and general ethos of the school?
Organization:
Community Involvement:
Parental Involvement:
Governor Involvement:
Children with special needs—remedial and very able:
Internal Communications:

5. Are your school hours utilized to the best advantage

for the school?

6. Do you see any areas for improvement in personal

relationships?
7. INSET—Courses (i) attended (ii) contributed to
8. Career Development:
Short term — Long term
In service needs
Any other points you wish to raise?

Signed ..................(Head)
...................... (Appraiser)

Figure 9.6 Headteacher’s appraisal form

150
 Appraisal and the Headteacher

A —Those capable of conducting the appraisal:

(i) The deputy head.
(ii) LEA Inspector/Adviser.
(iii) A seconded/promoted head.
(iv) A member of the head’s peer group.
B —Those able to contribute to the appraisal:
(i) Members of the teaching staff,
(ii) Members of the non-teaching staff,
(iii) Governors,
(iv) Parents.
(v) The community,
(vi) Members of support agencies associated with the
school.

Figure 9.7 Who might appraise the headteacher?

head in person. In Somerset, one of the six pilot areas funded by

the DES to conduct research into teacher appraisal, early
investigation is being carried out on the concept of a ‘24,000 mile
service’ whereby each headteacher will be appraised by two heads
from a different catchment area in the same authority. The Committee
of Heads of Educational Institutions (CHEI), in their proposals
for discussion outlined in the journal Education of 21 March 1986,
suggest that the professional appraisal of headteachers should be
conducted by experienced heads of high standing who would serve
for a period of one to three years. Turner and Clift (1985) found
that some schools had experimented with heads of department,
committees of staff and outsiders, (for example from industry)
conducting the head’s appraisal. Clearly there is much diversity
in the early investigative work being carried out and hopefully
this may prove productive when guidelines begin to emerge.
When considering the personnel who may be involved with
the appraisal process it may be of value to consider two categories;
those who might conduct the appraisal and those who could
contribute to the appraisal (Figure 9.7). There appear to be three
principal criteria by which one might identify the most appropriate
people to conduct the appraisal, viz:

1. Expertise in the function of headship.

151
Harry Moore

2. Knowledge of contextual issues relating to the school and

its community.
3. Professional acceptability.

Applying these criteria to staff appraisal one would assume, under

normal circumstances, that the head would be acceptable on all
three aspects. However, when applying the same criteria to the
head’s appraisal and attempt to match personnel from ‘A’ in Figure
9.7 we might find, for example, that a deputy head has knowledge
of the school and is professionally acceptable but lacks expertise
in the function of headship, or that an LEA Inspector possesses
the necessary expertise in the function of headship and is
professionally acceptable but lacks the necessary detailed
knowledge of the school.
The involvement of more than one person to carry out the
appraisal interview is one obvious solution. The author’s appraisal
has been conducted on this basis, following considerable discussion
which resulted in the first deputy and the LEA Inspector, with
pastoral responsibility for the school, conducting the interview.
Both brought relevant expertise, experience and knowledge of
the school to the process. The deputy had some ten years experience
in that position at the school, including one term spent as acting
head. The Inspector had formerly been headteacher of a similar
type of school. The deputy head was made the principal appraiser
and, during the period leading up to the interview, consulted widely
with staff, chairman of the governors and parent governors. In
this particular instance the combination of deputy and Inspector
has appeared to work well. However, this has been, principally,
as a result of the combined expertise of the people involved rather
than the positions held, and it is not, therefore, the intention of
the author to make a general case for deputy and Inspector to
conduct headteachers’ appraisal. Other combinations could work
equally as well.

Conclusion

The success of any appraisal system will need to be judged on

the benefits which accrue, particularly in the quality of the
education offered by a school. Appraisal provides an opportunity
to make the best use of the most important resource in that
provision—the teachers in the schools.
In order to achieve this:

152
 Appraisal and the Headteacher

1. Grasp the nettle of headteacher appraisal—the nub of any

scheme’s credibility is the appraisal of headteachers (Suffolk,
1985).
2. Establish clearly defined, agreed objectives.
3. Consider carefully the contextual importance of interpersonal
relationships within the school, particularly with regard to
who should be involved in the process.
4. Face difficult situations, when they arise, with openness
and honesty.
5. Exclude disciplinary matters from the appraisal interview.
6. Identify the resource implications, particularly that of time.
7. Act on recommendations arising from the appraisal process.
8. Respect sensitive aspects relating to the ownership of forms
and confidentiality.

153
Chapter 10

Classroom Observation
Clive Carthew

Introduction

The model and style of classroom observation described in this

chapter are based almost exclusively on a series of practical
experiences during the past five years. Each experience has added
or confirmed some aspect of the model.
One of my responsibilities as a chief examiner in modern
languages for a large examinations board is the annual moderation
of assistant examiners. This requires ‘sitting-in’ as they conduct
the examination and then, subsequently, discussing their
performance. Two aspects are being appraised—examination
technique and assessment accuracy: these are not negotiable. Most
people are a little nervous in such a situation, they want to perform
well. To reduce this anxiety, to increase the feeling of trust, and
to prepare the ground for the next visit, the follow-up discussion
contains careful suggestion and considerable praise for what has
been done well. A benevolent developmental approach has proved
the most constructive, and although there can be no choice about
what is to be observed, most examiners look forward to an annual
observation to assure them of their growing professional
competence.
I have also had an opportunity to work in the classroom with
many teachers and lecturers as an advisory teacher. This led to
an understanding of the need for genuine negotiation. The work
required a responsiveness to what the teacher initiated; it demanded
finding out not only what the teacher wanted to deliver and how
he or she was intending to deliver it, but also negotiating the
role of the advisory teacher in such a context. The valuing of

154
 Classroom Observation

the teacher as an individual and skilled professional, the lack

of imposition, and the willingness to take the teacher’s starting
point as sacrosanct can all conspire to improve dramatically the
outcomes of classroom observation.
As a middle manager in a further education college, I failed
miserably several years ago at introducing a scheme of classroom
observation to a team of full- and part-time lecturers. They simply
refused to be involved when I told them of my intention to visit
their class. They were quite correct to do so—no declared purpose,
no discussion or consultation; result, no observation! Without
careful preparation and real participation leading to shared and
agreed aims and methods, little will happen.
Such experiences have been augmented by opportunities to learn
about various industrial and commercial models of performance
appraisal. These models rarely have the equivalent of classroom
observation, that is observation of the appraisee ‘on-the-job’. They
tend to be more ‘off-the-job’, review dominated models. However,
what the more successful models do display are well-planned and
well-prepared lead-ups to the review interviews, and equally well-
developed follow-up after the interview.

Classroom observation

The majority of practising teachers spend most of their time in

the classroom. This is where their influence upon pupils and
students is at its most direct and immediate, and where the
development of individual children, young people and adults can
be affected. This in no way denies or decries the many other
activities that make up a teacher’s day, week and term, all of
which are essential and demanding components for the progress
of the school or college, for the department to which the teacher
belongs, and for the personal and professional development of
the teacher. Indeed, without the discussion, reading, planning,
attendance at courses and reflection that are indispensable, the
learning experience for pupils and students would be much the
poorer. However, such preparation is rather egotistical unless
ultimately it is transferred to the benefit of the pupils and students
in the teacher’s charge, and where the teacher is likely to interact
most with the pupil/student—in the classroom.
A classroom, of course, can be just that. It can also be a science,
home economics or language laboratory, a workshop or technology
area, gymnasium or sports field, music or art room. Perhaps what

155
Clive Carthew

it cannot be is an area of the school or college where accidents

or ad hoc interactions occur—corridors, staffrooms, playgrounds
and the like. In other words, it is where ‘formal’, planned and
prepared learning and teaching takes place. To support a teacher
in what he or she is trying to do, and to provide relevant and
helpful training where appropriate, the observation of performance
in such an environment is, then, essential.
If such observation is really to be helpful, then the perception
of this aspect of appraisal as being inspectoral, threatening and
malevolent has to be altered. One model of classroom observation
that may avoid such a negative perception is that based upon
negotiation, benevolence and professional development. This model
accepts the fact that although more teachers are beginning to
be more accustomed to having other teachers in their classrooms,
they are still quite anxious about the idea of another person
watching their teaching and forming opinions about it. Similarly,
many teachers are suspicious that appraisal is concerned with
distinguishing shortcomings and faults, and with recording and
using them against the teacher.
Negotiation is aimed at overcoming these concerns and anxieties
by suggesting that nothing, other than the need for supportive
classroom observation, is to be imposed. Thus, the teacher should
be encouraged to discuss and agree the timing of any visits, the
personnel involved, the sorts of activities to be observed and
commented upon, and the final report—if there is to be such a
document—including any agreed future actions.
It is equally important that the teacher feels comfortable with
the observer. The teacher must have confidence and trust in the
person who is watching him or her perform, and feel that
benevolent, constructive criticism and practical suggestions will
arise as a result of the visit. Benevolence does not mean
sycophancy, if it did little progress could be made, and it is this
idea of positive progress that should be at the heart of the
observation. To support the observation and the ensuing discussion
there must be, where appropriate, the possibilities of new
opportunities for the teacher who has been observed to progress
and develop his or her technique, skills and knowledge and may
require off-the-job training and support. They may also be for
other teachers who might benefit by hearing or reading about
what the ‘observed’ teacher is doing in a particular area of the
curriculum or with an especially successful piece of pedagogical
good practice. The main point to keep in mind is that the outcomes
of classroom observation should be developmental not absolute;

156
 Classroom Observation

they need to look to the future, to stimulate and encourage both

personally and professionally.

The basic questions about classroom observation

Looking more specifically at some of the issues involved in

classroom observation and holding firmly to the ideas of
negotiation, benevolence and development, two questions
immediately arise: ‘Who should observe?’ and ‘What should be
observed?’ In answer to, ‘Who should observe?’, the first
possibility is, of course, the teacher him or herself. Much of this
already occurs, but automatically and subjectively to the point
where, in many cases, it has become a reflex action below the
level of useful consciousness. If a teacher can devote a little time
and effort to a more systematic and objective approach to self-
observation then there is, perhaps, much to be gained. At a basic
level a teacher may devote ‘between-class’ time to two questions:
either, ‘Why did that class go well?’ or ‘Why did that class go
badly?’. This reflective observation can sometimes be quite
productive; certainly the more of a habit it becomes, the greater
the variety of answers. At a rather more sophisticated level that
teacher may deliberately target one class each week for self-
observation. During such a session, time has to be set aside to
step back from the immediate situation to look at what is
happening. Questions such as, ‘Am I doing what I intended to
do at this point in the class? If not, why not?’, and ‘Are the pupils/
students doing what I hoped they would be doing at this stage?
If not, why not?’ can be asked and brief answers noted down
for later consideration. Involving the pupils/students is more than
self-observation but perhaps a little short of peer observation!
One way to get a comment from the pupils/students is to ask
them at the end of the class to write down briefly what they think
has happened in the class, what it was about, what they have
learnt or learnt to do, how they have learnt it and how you, the
teacher, behaved. If, before looking at what they wrote you write
your own answers to the same questions, an interesting comparison
of perceptions may throw a little light on how that particular
class went.
Peer observation is more demanding in organizational terms
and requires greater trust and confidence. In return there is the
possibility of benevolent and constructive objectivity at best, and
a sympathetic ear at least. Putting aside the logistics, a ‘peer’

157
Clive Carthew

could be from the same school/college, from a different institution,

or not from the education service at all. A ‘peer’ should be a
friend or colleague, perhaps someone who teaches the same subject
or someone from a completely different discipline or profession.
The important thing is that he or she poses no threat, can be
trusted to share thoughts only with the teacher and can be relied
upon to try to do what is asked. Whereas it is true that nowadays
more teachers are more used to having another non-pupil/student
in the classroom, it is also true that few teachers are used to
this other person watching what is happening and what he or
she, the teacher, is doing. It is essential to give some agreed
structure and purpose to this observation so that both parties know
what is to be done, and what is expected, so that they can
subsequently contribute to the ensuing follow-up discussion. Some
teachers want a peer observer to concentrate upon their (the
teachers) basic delivery—stance, volume, clarity, position in the
classroom, etc.—others to look at the use of equipment—OHP,
microcomputer, tape recorder—and others to observe how the
teacher introduces and maintains groups and group activities.
There are obviously many more possibilities but the vital element
that links them all is that teacher and observer have agreed
beforehand the purpose of the observation and can, therefore,
hold a sensible, productive discussion about that issue following
the class. The conclusion of such a discussion should be some
action—an improvement or innovation aimed at enhancing the
pupils’/students’ learning experience.
When observation is to be carried out by a superior there is
no reason for negotiation, benevolence and a developmental
approach to be abandoned. Indeed, it is under such circumstances
that these three tenets should be adhered to most firmly. The
feeling of inspection must be subordinated to the need for a
supportive atmosphere in which the teacher being observed can
perform at his or her highest level, and not feel that he or she
is about to be caught out or perceived negatively if absolutely
everything does not go to plan. Put another way, a superior should
be someone that the observed teacher respects and from whom
he or she can learn; the observer needs to be someone with greater
and wider experience who is capable of commenting constructively
on a teacher’s performance in a way that promotes a willingness
to learn and change. To improve objectivity and perhaps to ensure
fairness some people have suggested that a second person ought
to be involved with each observation. Three perceptions, it is
suggested, are likely to provide a fuller description than two;

158
 Classroom Observation

others suggest that greater arguments would ensue which would

not be helpful to the teacher. The cost and time involved would
be much heavier, and an implied mistrust of a single observer’s
skill and experience seems to run counter to the whole idea of
negotiation and benevolence.
It is in this last instance, observation by a superior, that the
need for observation skills training is essential. In addition to
normal interactive personal skills, an observer should also be
capable of adjusting his or her approach to the aims and objectives
of each individual teacher and class. Following an observation,
sensitivity and tact should be used to deliver the appropriate
professional descriptions and suggestions.
This brings us to the second question which was, ‘What should
be observed?’ and to the relationship between who and what should
be observed. If, for instance, a teacher is anxious to be observed
on a new piece of curriculum content, say in mathematics or in
French, then it seems reasonable for a mathematics or French
teacher to be the observer. If, however, it is the delivery of a
piece of curriculum that is to be observed, then maybe it would
be better to have a non-specialist as an observer, although certainly
in the case of French some knowledge of the language would
seem essential. In the case of observation by a superior most
teachers would probably look to their head of department/senior
lecturer as the appropriate mentor on both content and delivery.
Others, however, might want what they would consider to be a
more objective viewer and, as discussed above, it is in these
situations that the question of content or delivery becomes
important. The issue of whether teachers when being observed
by a superior should be able to negotiate who carries out the
observation is worthy of some debate.
There can be little doubt that most observations will centre
upon delivery. This being so, issues of appropriateness, flexibility,
variety and successfulness come into play. It can be quite
demanding simply to describe what happens in a classroom and
even more difficult to make and share opinions about what two
people have experienced and perceived. Given the opportunity,
then, it can be very helpful to be as specific as possible about
what is to be observed. ‘Content’ and ‘delivery’ are catch-all words,
easily interpreted and intertwined, and they can lead to considerable
problems in a post-observation discussion. Some specific classroom
activities have been mentioned above; others might come
spontaneously from the teacher as items or areas which he or
she is finding difficult and with which some guidance or help

159
Clive Carthew

would be welcome. Some examples might include: use of handouts,

control of discussion sessions, working with groups or with one
group, use of time, boy/girl bias, and teacher listening skills. To
be able to focus the observation to this extent gives real purpose
to the event, imposes a tight brief upon the observer and can
subsequently provide the teacher with precise support.

A practical model for classroom observation

From the above comments it is possible to describe a practical

model for classroom observation which has three distinct sections:

1. Preparatory discussion/interview.
2. Observation.
3. Follow-up discussion/interview leading to agreement on
action.

Whether self-observation, peer observation or observation by a

superior is being undertaken, the above model is equally applicable.
The following comments, however, apply particularly to
observation by a superior.

A. Preparatory discussion/interview

A sensible amount of time should be allocated to this activity

and a reasonably private and comfortable environment used. The
time should be used:

1. To establish, if necessary, some relationship and rapport.

2. To clarify the purpose of the observation.
3. To agree mutually convenient dates for both the observation
and the follow-up discussion.
4. To agree the general aim of the follow-up discussion.
5. To establish the nature of the class to be observed.
6. To establish its position in relation to the teacher’s scheme
of work or syllabus.
7. To establish the aim and objective(s) of the learning/ teaching
to be undertaken in the class.
8. To establish the specific aim of the observation.

160
 Classroom Observation

9. To agree on the introduction of the observer to the class,

where he or she will initially or continuously sit, and whether
he or she will say anything during the class.

B. Observation

This should take place as and when agreed, unless it is impossible

so to do. A considerable amount of preparation by both teacher
and observer should have gone into this activity, with the target
of a particular class. If for any reason the observation of that
class cannot take place, then in all fairness both teacher and
observer should return to section A and start again.

C. Follow-up discussion/interview leading to agreement on action

Comments about time and place are the same as those for the
preparatory discussion/interview.

1. The aim of the follow-up should be reiterated.

2. The area of the discussion should be that agreed upon in
the preparatory session.
3. A genuine discussion should be expected to take place.
4. Some agreed action should arise.
5. Agreement should be reached on any written statement of
the observation.

Several issues arise from such a model. Three are discussed

below:
(i) However well negotiated the observation and however
benevolent and developmental in approach both the observer and
the teacher aim to be, there are bound to be occasional
disagreements. These can arise from different perceptions or
interpretations and can quickly polarize into unproductive static
positions. Some method of arbitration and moderation must be
available to deal with such situations which maintains both the
value of observation and the right of the teacher to ask for ‘a
second opinion’. It is to be hoped that with sensitivity, benevolence
and careful preparation such disagreements will be kept to an
absolute minimum. If not, the credibility of the whole idea is
called into question.

161
Clive Carthew

Figure 10.1 Classroom observation as a developmental process

(ii) The model has considerable resource implications, more so

if one believes that a one-off observation of each teacher might
hardly provide an honest view of him or her. Repeated or multiple
observations will clearly be more productive and representative,
but even more time consuming. They will also make the model
a more on-going and developmental process. In such a rolling
programme the teacher and observer can target specific areas
for action after the first follow-up discussion and can see these
at work in the second observation.
The timing of any observation can also be important, as it
may be quite different to observe a teacher at the beginning of
a new session, with a new class, rather than in the middle or at
the end of a session when a changed and perhaps more relaxed
and trusting relationship might considerably affect the style and
method of delivery.
(iii) In a school or college where such a model was adopted there
would clearly be a need for some system of management and
control. Unmanaged, haphazard arrangements would obviously
lead to a variety of stresses, tensions and clashes which could
quite quickly cause a detrimental wash-back on the whole idea.
The need to manage a system leads to further questions about

162
 Classroom Observation

the personnel involved, planning, whole-instruction involvement

and the confidentiality of records.

Classroom observation for many teachers is a new idea and is

yet another piece of change. To reduce resistance to this change,
ways and means have to be found to prove the benefits of such
a process. To say that it has to happen, to impose a rigid top-
down model will be unproductive, whereas to involve teachers
in the design and development of their own schemes of
observation could prove much more helpful. Looking for a
starting point, or more precisely a starting person, may require
the identification of key personnel, one or two teachers who
would look upon classroom observation as an opportunity to
show what they can do. To involve such people in the early
stages can lead to a positive perception of the idea by many
other less convinced staff.
Another strategy implied earlier in this chapter is to introduce
classroom observation in stages:

1. Self observation
2. Peer observation
3. Observation by a superior

One advantage of such a progression is that many, if not all,

teachers should have the opportunity, through peer observation,
to take on the role of observer. In this way the teacher can
experience the demands, difficulties and limitations of observing
before being involved him or herself in a more formal observation
by a superior. An opportunity like this may reinforce in each
teacher’s mind that there are many different and successful ways
of teaching, all valid. It might also reinforce the need to discover,
through discussion and negotiation, where the teacher to be
observed is, in the sense of his or her experience, confidence
and professional maturity: assuming that the teacher to be
observed is where the observer would like or expect him or
her to be does not suggest benevolent negotiation. This role
reversal, then, can be quite a productive activity for all
participants.
Finally, it is the responsibility of those introducing any scheme
of classroom observation to convince all taking part that the
exercise is one which is concerned with improving on-the-job
teaching skills to enhance both the job satisfaction of the teacher
and the learning experiences of the pupils and students.

163
Chapter 11

Staff Appraisal and the

Professional Development
of Teachers
Les Bell

Approaching staff appraisal

This book has documented some of the ways in which staff appraisal
has been approached in schools. It has not tried to provide a
comprehensive analysis of all the issues which are raised by the
introduction of appraisal but it has dealt with many of the more
significant ones by showing how they were dealt with in practice.
Most of the key questions about staff appraisal have been touched
upon, including who should appraise whom, when and where, and
what are the available forms of appraisal? Various models have been
suggested but the most significant factor which emerges when
exploring such questions is that if a system of staff appraisal is to
be adopted in any school then it should be derived from and be
compatible with the particular circumstances of that school. It should
not be imposed from outside or be based on inappropriate approaches
transplanted unthinkingly from elsewhere. Ideas developed by others
can be used, hence the purpose of this book, but these should be
modified and adapted to suit each individual school.
We do not present staff appraisal as ‘the alchemy for turning
base metal teachers into golden ones’ (Bunnell and Stephens,
1984, p.291) or the mechanism by which the incompetent can
be removed and the capable promoted more rapidly. The main
question which has been addressed by all the contributors is how
can staff appraisal contribute to more effective professional
development of teachers? The position taken by most of the
contributors has been, ‘If we want an appraisal scheme to match
our needs and principles we must involve ourselves in the making

164
 Staff Appraisal and the Professional Development of Teachers

of it.’ (Bunnell and Stephens, 1984, p.291.) Evaluation of our

own performance is a corporate professional exercise and,
therefore, we must all involve ourselves in the processes which
contribute to it. Such involvement has to include participation
in the discussions which precede the introduction of the process
and consultation about the nature of the process. C.D.M.Rhodes,
Clive Carthew, Jenny Morris and S.M.Slater all make this point
forcefully as it is only in this way that staff appraisal can be
seen to be truly formative rather than summative. Only formative
staff appraisal can be concerned with the professional development
of teachers. Richardson gives us a detailed account of how this
process evolved in his school, while Harry Moore gives us a
different but equally relevant insight into a similar process.
Some of the significant features of the staff appraisal schemes
considered here include the extent to which they all provided
opportunities for the appraisee to explore his or her own staff
development needs based on an open discussion of performance
within the context of what the school or the department had been
trying to achieve. Opportunities have also been provided to explore
the extent to which improvement is thought by both parties to be
necessary in any particular area, and to attempt to identify appropriate
career changes or developments which may need to take place in
order to maximize the individual’s career potential. On the basis
of this, actions can be agreed to bring about these improvements,
developments and changes. It is, then, the responsibility of the
appraiser to ensure that the necessary resources are provided in
order that these agreed targets can be met. The appraisal interview
can be extended to cover the ambitions and aspirations of individuals
and their potential for taking on more demanding jobs. It may
also be that views and feelings about the job, the department, or
the school emerge and these may be as useful to the appraiser as
to the appraisee. In short, successful staff appraisal in schools can
lead to the exploration and clarification of a number of points for
both the individual and the school. These may take the form of
questions which, while they would not be the focus of the content
of the staff appraisal interview nor the preparation for it, would
be explored indirectly during the interview. Questions such as these
are implicit in the approach adopted by both S.M.Slater and
A.J.Richardson in their different schools. The exploration of issues
such as these lead to the individual having a clearer understanding
of what his or her role is in the school, what the expectations
of other people of him or her are, and lead to a better understanding
of how he or she is fulfilling those expectations.

165
Les Bell

QUESTIONS QUESTIONS

For the individual For the School

Who is my BOSS? Policy making
What is my JOB? • Who does what?
HOW am I doing? • when?
WHAT am I doing • with what?
well? • to whom?
How can I do
BETTER? Implementation
• How are tasks
delegated?
How do I see the • What are the
organisation helping principles?
me? • How is
co-ordination
carried out?
Monitoring and
Evaluation
• Are tasks being
carried out?
• How well?
• What needs
change?
• Are results being
achieved?
Policy Revision
• What needs
changing?
• By whom?
• By when?
• How?

Figure 11.1 Questions explored by appraisal process

(Derived from a lecture given by Dr Patrick Bailey at the University of

Leicester School of Education to an NDC/SMT Conference on Staff
Appraisal, 14.11.85, quoted in Bell and Arnold [1987]).

166
 Staff Appraisal and the Professional Development of Teachers

A similar perspective can be found in School Evaluation, where

it is argued that:

If staff are to be encouraged or required to give of their

best then opportunities must exist to provide discussion
about their performance in relation to expectations. Staff
must then receive feedback on both expectations and
performance.
Teachers then have a right to know:

(a) To whom am I responsible?

(b) For what am I responsible?
(c) What am I expected to do?
(d) How am I doing?
(e) How can I do my job better?

Teachers also have the right to have access to anything

that is written about them and the right to respond or
appeal. They have a right to expect a negotiated
programme of professional development. Employers
and those in authority also have a right to show what
is going on in school/sections and a right to expect
teachers to develop and expand their skills through
professional development.
(Solihull, 1986, p.29).

Obviously, the introduction of staff appraisal into any school requires

thorough preparation, careful planning and a high degree of sensitivity.
The success of any appraisal system in any school depends to a
large extent on the willingness of all members of the organization
to give their commitment to that process. There will be teething
problems, difficulties, and anomalies but the advantages and benefits
both to the school and to individual teachers can be considerable.
It is teachers’ careers that are under discussion. This requires an
exercise of judgement and care. As appraisees we have to be receptive
and cooperative, seeing the benefits to ourselves and the needs of
the school. As appraisers we have to weigh our words like responsible
critics and be aware of their possible effects. We have a chance to
show appreciation, to learn and to help. We must focus as much as
humanly possible on the positive and the good while seeking to
improve and develop rather than to criticize and blame. Appraisal
provides us all with an opportunity to make the best use of the most
important resource we have in our schools, our colleagues.

167
Les Bell

Staff appraisal: problems and possibilities

Even in the most positive of climates the introduction of staff

appraisal to schools brings disadvantages as well as advantages.
Bell and Arnold (1987) point out that although appraisal may
be based on the provision of opportunities for professional
development, the major disadvantage associated with its
introduction is the fact that it will require a significant amount
of scarce resources devoted to it in terms of time and of money.
It may be unrealistic to expect an appraisal process to be carried
out outside normal working hours. Therefore, the resources have
to be provided in order to free those people who are involved
in the process so that they can meet, prepare for, and conduct
appraisal interviews, and also that they can follow up the interviews
effectively. Resources will also be required in order to meet the
training needs which such a process undoubtedly identifies. Wilcox
(1986) has suggested that the introduction of a systematic appraisal
system into all schools will require:

1. Central administration.
2. Release time for all teachers.
3. Training for heads, deputies, and heads of departments.
4. Secretarial costs.

He argued that this could cost LEAs £900,000 in one year. These
costs do not include the meeting of the subsequent training needs
either in school or from the resources of the LEA. Such additional
costs are too complicated to be able to compute with any degree
of accuracy given that the funding on in-service training is
undergoing a radical change. Apart from the cost in resource terms
the other major disadvantage associated with the introduction
of staff appraisal into schools is the cost in personal terms. An
effective process requires honesty and courage in its application
to all colleagues. It requires objectivity and the ability to separate
personal relationships from professional relationships. It also
requires those involved to recognize that appraisal can provoke
conflict and controversy, but that it need not do so if those involved
are well trained and are committed to carrying out the process
effectively.
Other disadvantages associated with appraisal often reflect a
set of assumptions about the meanings attached to appraisal by
those people who are in favour of its introduction into schools.
It was argued in chapter 1 that there are those who are concerned

168
 Staff Appraisal and the Professional Development of Teachers

appraisal would be used as a form of redeployment, as a technique

for eliminating rather than helping weak teachers, or as a
management tool to restructure the school without adequate
consultation. These fears have led to the development of an
argument in favour of ‘appraisal from below’. This may have
some limited value in that it permits a change of ideas and enables
the senior member of the school to appreciate the impact of his
or her actions on more junior colleagues. It has to be recognized,
however, that there will be many aspects of, say, the role of the
head of department, about which a junior member of that
department is entirely unaware and, therefore, would be unable
to comment upon in a meaningful or helpful way. An effective
appraisal process should enable colleagues to explore the extent
to which their professional relationship is an effective one and
to seek ways of improving the quality of that relationship.
When the potential benefits of staff appraisal are considered,
Bell and Arnold (1987) suggest that it provides the opportunity
for identifying and appraising good performance and encouraging
improved performance. A number of general benefits can, therefore,
be identified including the extent to which staff appraisal would
help schools in the process of curriculum development, in-service
training, problem solving, increased motivation and more public
credibility for teachers. More specifically, however, they argue,
that a systematic process of staff appraisal would encourage schools
to be much clearer and more specific about their overall aims,
their objectives, and their strategies for achieving these. Such a
process would also require that teachers have a clear and thorough
understanding of what their total responsibilities are: how they
are expected to carry them out and the extent to which they have
been successful. Thus the school will benefit from a better overall
understanding of how teachers see their jobs, how satisfied they
are with them, and what changes, if any, staff wish to make. This,
then, provides an opportunity to enable schools to plan for major
and minor changes in all areas and to ensure that staff development
and training can be related both to this and to the strengthening
of those aspects of the school’s work in which improvements
in performance may be necessary. Appraisal provides for the school
an opportunity to plan and make the best use of the available
potential and abilities within the staff team. It can also help to
develop an ethos within which major educational and professional
issues are depersonalized in such a way that honest communication
and understanding can take place between committed professionals
without the petty personal wrangles which sometimes accompany

169
Les Bell

this process. Relationships may, therefore, be improved within

the school.
More generally, however, a systematic process of staff appraisal
is an open process and can be seen to be such. This reduces,
although it cannot entirely eliminate, the subjectivity from the
professional assessment of the work of colleagues. It does provide
a permanent, shared, and agreed set of records upon which to
base the discussion of the work of any individual teacher within
the specific context of the school, the department, or the duties
and responsibilities of the post held by that individual. It can
also provide a much fairer and more up-to-date basis for making
professional judgements, which, at times, we are all required to
make about our colleagues when they are seeking promotion or
other forms of career enhancement. If the process is carried out
effectively, the person being appraised has as much ownership
of the process and its outcomes as the person carrying out the
appraisal. This can, in the right circumstances, increase motivation
and improve morale since each individual within the school gains
a greater sense of belonging through realization of the value of
his or her contribution to the school and the recognition that the
individual’s professional development is a significant part of the
concerns of the school.
If appraisal can help schools to be clearer about their aims
and objectives it can also lead to the clarification of personal
roles and responsibilities within the school and provide for the
individual to receive a relatively objective assessment of his or
her performance related to a set of plans for improving, developing,
or changing the professional competencies of that teacher where
it can be agreed that this is necessary. The teacher receives help
and encouragement to develop in appropriate ways, and is able
to play a significant part in the process of identifying his or her
own staff development needs. Thus we do not wish to suggest
that the introduction of staff appraisal in schools is without
problems or difficulties. In fact staff appraisal has associated with
it a range of disadvantages which may counterbalance its
advantages. It is the experience of most of the contributors to
this book that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and
the more closely linked appraisal is to staff development (see
Figure 11.2) the more likely this is to be the case.

170
 Staff Appraisal and the Professional Development of Teachers

Figure 11.2 Staff appraisal in the balance

171
Les Bell

Staff development and staff appraisal

It has been argued that no member of the teaching profession

can enter teaching and remain in it for several decades without
frequently updating his or her professional skills (AMMA, 1985).
Although development can take place even in the absence of
conscious planning and it is often triggered by events within the
environment, it is equally certain that the rapid changes facing
education today indicate a need for this development to be planned
in a systematic way if both the individual teacher and the school
are to benefit. Until recently ‘staff-development’ was equated
with attendance at in-service courses. We would contend there
is now, however, a need within schools for a clearly defined
coordinated policy for staff development which satisfies both
individual and organizational needs in a compatible way and which
cannot be achieved only by mere course attendance. In this context,
therefore, ‘appraisal’, as a means of identifying both individual
and organizational needs, has advantages for schools, not least
because through appraisal additional training needs, specifically
related to the individual and the school, will be identified, which
should lead to the provision of more relevant in-service training
courses and improve the use of these resources.
Basing programmes of staff development on the outcomes of
staff appraisal will help to counterbalance the tendency which
Shipton (1987) has identified. He suggests that those in senior
management positions in schools have tended to identify and
prioritize needs and then allocate the available resources. They
have tended to concentrate on such organizational issues as
programme scheduling, time release and use of resources. They
have expected the individual teacher’s needs to fit into the model.
Thus the needs of the school have become paramount and the
teachers are merely being asked to respond to a particular definition
of the situation which they may play no part in formulating. Gough
(1985) has argued that staff development must be based, in part
at least, on the teacher’s own perceptions of what he or she is
trying to achieve for the pupils, for the school and for himself or
herself. It is essential to recognize that teachers themselves are
very complicated and unique individuals who, traditionally, have
taught pupils in the isolation of their own classroom and, until
comparatively recently, have seen their responsibilities as being
located in the areas of ‘children’ and, perhaps, ‘subject’. Teachers
have, of course, turned to their colleagues for help, support and
advice. As Nias (1984) makes us aware, it is through factors like

172
 Staff Appraisal and the Professional Development of Teachers

isolation, self-reliance, autonomy and individualism that teachers

construct their own ‘ideal’ model of a teacher from chance
encounters, inference and imagination. She argues that staff
development initiatives should acknowledge both the isolating nature
of classroom teaching and the rooted individualism of teachers,
since it appears that teachers do have a strong sense of personal
and professional identity. Thus there may be a conflict between
the individual staff development needs, as perceived by each
individual teacher, and the needs of the school in relation to broader
aspects of school policy and school development in terms both
of direction and priorities. It can be seen from several of the
contributions to this book, notably Jenny Morris, A.J.Richardson
and S.M.Slater, that staff appraisal provides one way to balance
the needs of the individual and the needs of the school. It at least
enables plans for staff development to be based on accurate
information. At the same time, however, it remains important to
stress that staff appraisal and self-evaluation are both part of an
individual teacher’s personal professional development.
If the prime purpose of staff appraisal is to improve the quality
and organization of teaching and learning in schools, then as Nisbet
argues, appraisal:

…should be beneficial in its effect. It should be linked to

a development programme which will provide support to
improve staff performance. It must not damage or distort
the processes of learning and teaching. It must not
damage morale, destroy relationships and trust… It
should be fair. It must not only operate equitably for all
concerned, but also be seen as working fairly… It should
be comprehensive, covering the full range of work done
by teachers… It should be valid…
(Nisbet, 1986, p.16.)

Nisbet’s criteria for effective and acceptable processes have been

developed further by Nuttall (1986) who identifies a number of
such qualities. Firstly is the need for trust among the staff and
commitment from the top which, together, can facilitate a climate
of constructive self-criticism. Secondly is the requirement that
formative and summative purposes should not be undertaken
simultaneously or by the same set of processes. Thirdly, the
outcomes of the process should be linked to appropriate actions,
the resources for which must be forthcoming. Fourthly is the
importance of involving those who will be appraised in the

173
Les Bell

development of the scheme rather than imposing it upon them.

This must, in turn, result in effective self-appraisal becoming
an important component, although not the only one, in the appraisal
process. Fifthly, Nuttall argues, an acceptable scheme must give
the teachers some autonomy and provide them with some control
over the process. Similarly, Warwick (1983) has suggested among
the criteria that effective appraisal must meet are the following:

1. It must be accepted both by those having been appraised

and those appraising.
2. It must be open.
3. It must be comprehensive.
4. It must involve self assessment.
5. It must be consistent.
6. It must be planned.

Trethowan, emphasizing the role of target setting in the appraisal

process, has argued that the main purpose of appraisal is the
improvement of performance, which, in turn, should lead to continuous
supportive development (Trethowan, 1987, p.73). In order to achieve
this he suggests job descriptions, a clearly defined set of management
responsibilities, appropriate documentation, and well conducted
appraisal interviews will all be required. Most of the studies of staff
in this volume highlight similar issues. All emphasize the need for
trust, openness and the need for consultation and planning, although
Francis Arnold shows that not all of the staff of any one school
need to be involved in the first instance. A.J.Richardson and C.D.M.
Rhodes make a similar point while the importance of a well conducted
interview is recognized by everyone. Jenny Morris shows how staff
appraisal and the information obtained from it can be used to form
and reform groups of teachers based on their interests and enthusiasms,
thus making more effective use of staff while, at the same time,
providing them with greater job satisfaction.
If, then, the main purpose of staff appraisal is to promote the
most effective deployment of teachers and to ensure that teachers
have access to coherent, relevant programmes of staff development,
in order that pupils in schools may receive the maximum benefit
from their education, then it must be recognized that any formal
review is only part of a continuous process of monitoring and
evaluation. This on-going assessment will include regular and ad
hoc meetings and discussions about objectives, performance and
staff development (Bell and Arnold, 1987). If assessment is
continuous it should point to difficulties and shortcomings as they

174
 Staff Appraisal and the Professional Development of Teachers

emerge, and not produce them as some diabolic behavioural rabbit

from the appraiser’s hat. The appraisal meeting, by its deliberate
formality, points to the importance of the whole appraisal exercise.
It is the bringing together of reviewer and reviewee in a discussion
which embraces successes, aspirations, frustrations, problems and
needs which can influence performance and development. Very
few people are prepared to operate in a state of vacuum of
assumption—assumption that their job performance is completely
acceptable and that their individual concerns, aspirations and hopes
are known. It is incomprehensible that schools have tended to operate
on the basis of ‘I’ll soon let you know if you’re doing something
wrong’ but this approach is more prevalent than one might imagine
and the fault is often compounded by reference or criticism made
of which the person concerned is not aware. Appreciation and praise,
comment and criticism should be open and fully explored. This
is the key for any honest relationship between people. Within the
context of any appraisal system it is absolutely essential and must
be viewed as the core principle. Any form of reviewing, reporting
or appraisal scheme which does not provide for the subject to be
aware (by seeing what has been written) and does not allow
discussion and appeal is suspect and open to abuse. It must be
appreciated, however, that pure objectivity is unattainable, and self-
awareness will always be clouded by self-perception. It is important
to remember that, as Miles (1984) points out, staff appraisal should
never become a substitute for the regular discussion between
colleagues which should always be taking place. Nor should it
be conducted or documented in an inappropriately bureaucratic
way that may damage the professional relationship upon which
teaching hitherto, has been based. Thus:

What we should be looking for is not a slavish copy of

an outdated industrial model, but something…distinctive,
capable of providing its own challenge…
(Miles, 1984, p.236.)

In order to do this the appraisal of individual teachers needs to

be closely related to the aims of their schools and the strategies
for the school’s future development. Thus there needs to be a
clear understanding by all participants as to how the processes
of staff appraisal and the criteria adopted relate to the basic aims
of the school. There also needs to be an agreement that the
appraisal process reflects and considers the most important aspects
of the work of the school.

175
Les Bell

Staff appraisal and school development

One way to achieve this is to develop an appraisal process which

is closely linked to the overall aims and objectives of the school,
very much as S.M.Slater has done at Park Hall. As both Warwick
(1983) and Nutall (1986) have pointed out, there is a need within
the school for a climate that allows for open discussion, negotiation,
trust, respect, and ownership of collaborative processes. The
achievement of such a climate is, however, dependent on a number
of factors and it is important to recognize and take into account
the current stage of development of the school in deciding the
time scale of the activities. (See Figure 11.3)
The management of the introduction of the concept of staff
appraisal needs into the school is fundamental to ultimate success.
Two elements are seen as particularly crucial in this introduction:

1. Openness and clear communication.

2. The need for staff to take ownership of the process in such
a way as to ensure that it is shared dialogue between
colleagues which can be conducted on the basis of mutual
trust and respect.

In some schools, this may be done by arranging a meeting where

the whole staff can discuss the need for, and issues related to,
appraisal. In other schools the existing discussion/communication
structures may be used if appropriate. Such ways of consulting
the staff may include whole-staff meetings, departmental meetings
and meetings of existing committees. It may be desirable to use
more than one of these, for example, a meeting of senior staff,
followed by a full staff meeting and developed further in
departmental or other meetings. The next stage could be for the
headteacher to nominate a teacher with responsibility for staff
development and staff appraisal and to manage a professional
development group which would be representative of the staff
as a whole. In smaller schools this may well be the whole staff.
All colleagues will need to be well briefed about the purpose
of the activity and about the processes to be used in order to
carry out individual staff appraisals and to relate these to the
needs of the school as well as to a coherent programme of staff
development.
The staff appraisal interview will be central to the process. This
should be a helping activity based on open communication and
owned jointly by the parties involved as Francis Arnold and A.J.

176
 Staff Appraisal and the Professional Development of Teachers

Figure 11.3 Key elements in the staff appraisal interview

177
Les Bell

Richardson have shown in their chapters. The interview, as both

Kingsley Bungard and C.D.M.Rhodes have pointed out, is carried
out on the following basic principles:

1. It should be conducted on the basis of a genuine two-way

professional exchange and should concentrate on the present
circumstances and future developments. The discussion
should, however, ensure that the teacher’s contribution plays
a major part.
2. It should produce a negotiated and agreed action with no
false promises.
3. It should be related directly to the role which the individual
plays in the school. It should seek to achieve a congruence
between the individual’s needs and those of the school. It
should also consider the teacher’s future aspirations and
identify areas for possible future development.
4. There should be a structure to the discussion and this structure
should be understood/agreed by all the parties to the process
who should be able to prepare themselves in advance. This
is essential to ensure self-awareness and maximum value
to the teacher concerned. This preparation which would help
focus the discussion could take a variety of forms including
for example:

• A key activity list for the individual’s particular role.

• Consideration of the teacher’s job description. The job
description itself may form part of the exchange. For
example, one useful element of the discussion may be
the extent to which the teacher’s perception of his or
her job description matches the ‘official’ or ‘formal’
job description. This may lead to a negotiation of a
change in the job description as part of the
identification of needs process.
• A check-list or questionnaire completed by individual
teachers indicating their own strengths and
development needs.

The interview should focus on agreed areas of performance and

time must be allowed for both parties to prepare fully.
The ‘interviewer’ may be the headteacher or other member
of the senior management team. Personality rather than position
is, however, seen as crucial, with trust and empathy being
particularly highlighted. However, if not the headteacher, the

178
 Staff Appraisal and the Professional Development of Teachers

‘interviewer’ must be provided with clearly defined areas of

responsibility and the parameters of his or her decision making.
It is important that the discussions should be in private, free from
interruptions and with adequate time allowed. The outcome of
the interview should be an agreement in the form of an individual
staff development plan for the teacher involved in the professional
exchange. This will be confidential to the parties involved and
to those in the school who are responsible for meeting the
professional development needs of colleagues. The initial
discussion may result in follow-up interviews, by agreement
between those involved in the initial exchange, if further attention
is required in specific specialist areas. How, then, can staff appraisal
be limited to both individual and school development needs in
such a way as to emphasize the formative aspects of staff appraisal
and to eliminate the summative elements? A number of possible
models suggest themselves. For example, Jenny Morris in her
role as professional tutor developed an approach which helped
staff to understand more fully the philosophy and objectives of
a newly amalgamated school. The interviews here seemed almost
therapeutic at times. S.M.Slater, in his first school developed a
model based on discussions involving all the staff. This took the
aims and objectives of each department as its starting point. In
his present school he has adopted a similar process through a
series of in-service training days. Here the starting focus is the
whole school’s aims and objectives and the existing management
structure provides the framework for the process. A.J.Richardson
based his approach on the professional concerns of his staff.
A similar approach to that of Slater and Richardson, which
is also based on detailed discussions with staff about the objectives
of the school, its organizational needs, and the professional
development needs of the staff, is illustrated in Figure 11.4. Here
full consideration of the needs of the school take place in parallel
with the introduction of staff appraisal so that discussions in one
area can inform those in another. Simply described, the process
might begin with a whole-staff consultation, out of which a group
responsible for managing the process would be identified. Most
schools, as a result of GRIST, already have a staff-development
coodinator who should be involved in the process. If a supporting
group of colleagues can be identified the ownership of the process
can be more widely shared and, when appraisal interviews are
being considered, a number of this group might be involved where
appropriate. As a result of discussion at school, department or
other functional group level, the main priorities for the school

179
Les Bell

Figure 11.4 School development and staff appraisal

180
 Staff Appraisal and the Professional Development of Teachers

might be identified and agreed upon before appraisal interviews

start. In this way the action plans, which will result from the
appraisal interviews, can be informed by the discussions on the
school’s immediate needs. The professional development of
individual teachers can, in this way, be more closely linked to
the priorities of the school. In turn, this will make it more likely
that those needs can and will be met. The meeting of individual
staff development needs as they emerge from the appraisal process
is, perhaps, the single most important factor in ensuring that staff
appraisal is successful in so far as it is understood and accepted
by teachers and it produces the desired outcomes for their pupils—
that is, an improvement in the quality of the education which
they receive. It must always be recognized that the principal aim
of teacher appraisal should be the improvement of children’s
education.

181
Notes on contributors

Francis Arnold is a management consultant working in the public

and private sectors. He works with the Church, the Police and
several national and international companies. Over a third of his
work involves him in the education sector with schools, colleges
of further education, LEAs and Universities. He is particularly
interested in managing change, team development and staff
appraisal and has published many articles on management training
and development.

Les Bell taught in both primary and secondary schools before

entering teacher education. He joined the University of Warwick
on 1 April 1978 when Coventry College of Education was merged
with it. He is now a Senior Lecturer in Education in the DES
and has special responsibility for courses in educational
management. He has acted as a consultant on educational
management for a large number of schools and LEAs and has
written extensively on school organization and management.

Kingsley Bungard obtained a Diploma in Management Studies

and a PGCE before becoming a Lecturer in Business Management
at Kent College of Further Education. Subsequently he has been
an industrial training advisor and the manager of a Management
Training Centre. He is now Director of Professional Development
at Silsoe College, Cranfield Institute of Technology. He has worked
extensively in management training for heads and teachers in
schools, especially in the areas of staff appraisal and staff
development.

Clive Carthew has a background in modern languages. He became

a Senior Lecturer in the Management and Business Studies
Department of a further education college and a chief examiner
for the Associated Examining Board. He has recently been working
as a TRIST advisory teacher and, in September 1987, he joined
the West Midlands Examining Board as Principal Assistant

182
 Notes on Contributors

Secretary. He has two text books published by Longman and is

presently preparing a book on educational management.

Harry Moore has been a headteacher for fourteen years. Since

1980 he has been head of a group 7 Primary School with a Nursery
Unit. His introduction of staff appraisal to this school is part of
a research project being carried out by the Open University. He
has been involved in management courses at the Open University,
Birmingham Polytechnic and the University of Warwick.

Jenny Morris trained as an English teacher and was a head

of department before becoming a deputy headteacher of a high
school in Rugby. This school was closed in 1985 and its staff
and pupils were amalgamated with two other schools to form
the new Ashlawn School. She is now one of the deputy
headteachers of the new school. Her duties include a
responsibility for staff development. Her other interests include
multi-racial and multi-cultural education, community relations
and the Young Enterprise Scheme.

Chris Rhodes worked for the Service Children’s Education

Authority for thirteen years and has experienced formal teacher
appraisal with that authority which introduced it in the late 1970s.
Since 1980 he has been head of Sydenham County Middle
School, Leamington Spa and regularly contributes to management
courses.

Tony Richardson taught in a number of primary schools before

becoming head of Green Lanes Primary School, Metropolitan
Borough of Solihull in 1984. He has contributed extensively to
in-service courses, especially in the areas of educational drama
and approaches to pupil personal development in the primary
school, and he has published a number of articles. His school
has received a grant from SCDC to develop pupil autonomy in
Learning.

Sid Slater is the head of Park Hall School in the Metropolitan

Borough of Solihull before which he was head of Abraham Moss
High School in Manchester, and Assistant Principal of the North
Manchester College. He is editor of the Journal of Evaluation
in Education and has published widely on school evaluation, staff
appraisal, links between education and industry and curriculum

183
Notes on Contributors

innovation. He has also directed a large number of regional and

national conferences on school evaluation.

Norman Thomas was a primary schoolteacher and headteacher

before joining HM Inspectorate in 1962. He retired from HMI
in 1982 as Chief Inspector for Primary and Middle Schools. Since
then he has continued writing and lecturing on educational matters,
chairing the committee of inquiry into primary education in ILEA.
Improving Primary Schools (1985), acting as specialist adviser
to the House of Commons, Education, Science and Arts Committee
in its inquiry into primary education.

184
Bibliography

Adams, D. Life, the Universe and Everything, Barker, 1982.

Alexander, R. Primary Teaching, Holt Education, 1984.
Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association. Appraisal: Trick or Treat? An
AMMA discussion document, AMMA, 1985.
Bell, L.A. ‘Appraisal and Schools’ in Management in Education, Volume
1, Number 1, 1987, pp.30–34.
Bell, L.A. and Arnold, F. ‘Introducing Staff Appraisal to Schools’ in School
Organisation, Volume 7, Number 2, 1987, pp.193–207.
Bell, L.A. and Maher, P. Leading a Pastoral Team. A Staff Development
Approach, Blackwells, 1986.
Bell, L.A. ‘ Teacher Attitudes to Appraisal: a survey of conference members,
University of Warwick, DES Mimeo, 1985.
Blackburn, K. ‘Teacher Appraisal’ in M.Marland (Ed.) School Management
Skills, Heinemann Organisation in Schools Series, 1986.
Bunnell, S. and Stephens, E. ‘Teacher Appraisal—A Democratic Approach’
in School Organisation, Volume 4, Number 4, 1984, pp.291–302.
Butterworth, I.B. The Appraisal of Teachers, Educational Management
Information Exchange Paper, 1985.
Campbell, R.J. Developing the Primary Curriculum, Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
1985.
Clift, P. ‘LEA Schemes for School Self-Evaluation’ in Educational Research,
Volume 24, Number 4, pp.26–35.
Croydon LEA. A System of Professional Performance Appraisal Discussion
Document, London Borough of Croydon, 1984.
Cumbria LEA. The Appraisal and Professional Development of Teaching Staff,
Cumbria Education Committee, 1985.
Day, C., Johnstone, D. and Whitaker, P. Managing Primary Schools, Harper
& Row, 1986.
Day, C. and Moore, R. Staff Development in The Secondary School, Croom
Helm, 1987.
Dean, J. ‘Teacher Appraisal: some questions to ask’ in Inspection and Advice,
Volume 22, Number 1, 1986.
Delaney, P. ‘Teacher appraisal in the Primary School: One School’s Experience.’
Junior Education Special Report, Scholastic Publication, 1986.
DES, (1972). Teacher Education and Training, (The James Report), HMSO.
DES, (1979a). Aspects of Secondary Education in England, HMSO.
DES, (1979b). A Framework for the School Curriculum, HMSO.

185
Bibliography

DES, (1981a). The School Curriculum, HMSO.

DES, (1981b). Circular 6.81, HMSO.
DES, (1983). Teaching Quality, HMSO.
DES, (1985a). Better Schools, HMSO.
DES, (1985b). Quality in Schools: Evaluation and Appraisal, HMSO.
DES, (1985c). The Curriculum from 5 to 16: Curriculum Matters 2, HMSO.
DES, (1987). The Education Act, HMSO.
DES, (1986). The Education (School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions of
Employment) Order, HMSO.
Des Forges, B. ‘Staff development, assessment and evaluation’ Review:
Secondary Headteacher’s Association, Volume 79, December, 1984.
Dockrell, B., Nisbet, J., Nuttall, D., Stones, E, and Wilcot, B. Appraising
Appraisal, British Educational Research Association, 1986.
Easen, P. Making School Based INSET Work, Open University Press, 1985.
Elliot, G. Self-Evaluation and the Teacher, Schools Council (mimeo), 1981.
Elliot-Kemp. Staff Development in Schools. A Framework for Diagnosis for
Identifying Teacher Development Needs, Pavic Publications, 1981.
Gautry, T. Lux Mini Laws: School board memories, Link House, 1937.
Gough, R.G. ‘Staff Development as part of the continuing Education of
Teachers’ in British Journal of In-service Education and Training, Volume
12, Number 1.
Grace, G. Teachers, Ideology and Control: a study in urban education,
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978.
Grace, G. ‘Judging Teachers: the social and political contexts of teacher
evaluation’ in British Journal of Sociology of Education, Volume 6, Number
1, 1985, pp.3–16.
Hancock, D. Staff Appraisal in Schools and Colleges—A View from the DES,
Lecture to ‘Education for Industrial Society’, 25 February, 1985.
Hellawell, D. Job Descriptions and Performance Appraisal, Forthcoming article
Education Dept., Birmingham Polytechnic Mimeo, 1986.
Inner London Education Authority. Keeping the School under Review, ILEA,
1977.
James, C. and Newman, J. ‘Staff Appraisal: Current Practice in Schools’ in
Contributions, Number 8, Centre for the study of Comprehensive Schools,
University of York, 1985.
Joseph, K. Speech to the North of England Education Conference at Sheffield,
6 January 1984.
Joseph, K. Speech to the North of England Education Conference at Chester,
4 January, 1985.
Killing, J.P. and Fry, N. ‘Managing Change—pace, targets and tactics.’ Paper
produced for IMEDE (Institute pour L’Etudes des Methodes de Direction
de L’Enterprise) Ouchy Lausanne, Switzerland, 1986.
Leigh, P.M. ‘Ambiguous professionalism: a study of teachers’ status
perceptions’ in Education Review, Number 31, 1976, pp.27–44.
McMahon, A., Bolam, R., Abbott, R. and Holly, P. Guidelines for Review
and Internal Development in Schools (GRIDS), Longmans, 1984.

186
 Bibliography

Miles, J. ‘The Death’s Head Trail to Teacher Appraisal’ in Education, Volume

21, September, 1984, pp.235–6.
Montgomery, D. ‘Teacher Appraisal. A Theory and Practice for Evaluation
and Enhancement’ in Inspection and Advice, Volume 21, Number 1, 1985,
pp.16–19.
Montgomery, D. ‘The nub is credibility’ in Education, Volume 165, Number
12, 1985, p.259.
Moore, H. Collected original resources in Education (Core) Volume 10, Number
1, 1986, Carfax.
NAHT, Staff Development: the appraisal aspect, 1985.
Nias, J. ‘Learning and Acting the Role: In-School support for Primary Teachers’
in Educational Review, Volume 36, Number 1, 1984.
Nisbet, J. ‘Appraisal for Improvement’ in Dockrell et al., Appraising Appraisal,
BERA, 1986.
Nottinghamshire LEA. Teacher Professional Appraisal as Part of Development
Programme, Nottinghamshire County Council, 1985.
Nuttall, D. ‘What can we learn from Research on Appraisals’ in Dockrell
et al., Appraising Appraisal, BERA, 1986.
NUT. Teaching Quality, 1984.
NUT. Teacher appraisal and teacher quality, 1985.
Oxfordshire County Council. Starting Points in Self-Evaluation, Oxfordshire
Education Department, 1979.
Sharpe, R. and Green, A. Education and Social Control: A study in Progressive
Primary Education, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975.
Shipton, D.G. How are the Needs of Primary School Teachers to be Identified:
Unpublished Report of a Headteacher Fellowship, University of Warwick,
Department of Education, 1987.
Sidwell, D.M. ‘Staff Appraisal in Education: an analysis of practices and
principles in UK, France, Federal Republic of Germany and USA,
unpublished MA Thesis, University of Warwick, 1987.
Slater, S.M. and Long, R.S. ‘Whole School Evaluation: A Practical Guide
for Senior Staff’ in Evaluation and Education, Joint Issue 9/10 April, 1986,
pp.37–67.
Solihull LEA. Evaluating the Primary School, Metropolitan Borough of Solihull,
1980.
Solihull LEA. School Evaluation: A Guide for secondary schools Metropolitan
Borough of Solihull, 1986.
Stewart, V., and Stewart, A. Practical Performance Appraisal, Gower, 1977.
Suffolk LEA. Those having Torches…Teacher Appraisal: A Study, 1985.
Trethowan, D. ‘…to appraise teachers, not to bury them’ in The Times Education
Supplement, 8 March, 1985, p.21.
Trethowan, D. Appraisal and Target Setting: A Handbook for Teacher
Development, Harper & Row, 1987.
Turner, P. and Clift, P. First Review and Register of School and College-
Based Teacher Appraisal Schemes, Open University School of Education,
1985.

187
Bibliography

University of Nottingham. Managing Staff development in the Primary School:

problems and strategies, School of Education, Nottingham University, 1985.
Warwick, D. Staff Appraisal, Education for Industrial Society, 1983.
White, J. ‘The end of the compulsory curriculum’ in The Curriculum Institute
of Education, 1982.
Wilcox, B. ‘Context and Issues’ in Dockrell et al., Appraising Appraisal,
BERA, 1986.

188
Appendix 1

Extract from Evaluation

Papers—Park Hall School

School Management and Review

Aims of Course
The Course will bring together the senior and middle management
teams of the school. The Programme is designed to develop an
understanding of the school as an integrated unit, within which
management groups each carry out specific functions to aid the
development of the school. During the Course we will explore
the roles and responsibilites of senior and middle management
and how these are interwoven in the running of the school. One
of the major aims of the Course will be to develop an understanding
of the approaches which can be used to review and evaluate the
Department/Year in terms of successes and INSET needs. By
the end of the Course we hope to have refined our school review
process and developed a framework for action.

1. To develop an understanding of the school as an integrated

unit, within which management groups each carry out specific
functions to aid the development of the school.
2. To develop an understanding of the roles of the senior and
middle management staff.
3. To develop an understanding of the approaches which can
be used to review and evaluate the Department/Year in terms
of successes and INSET needs.
4. To develop a co-operative framework for reviewing our
performance and our in-service training needs.

189
Extract from Evaluation Papers—
Abraham Moss High School

Management and Review

INSET Course—Group Targets

Group session 1 (Sat a.m.)

1. Elect a chairperson and secretary for the group.

2. Identify the major roles and tasks of a Head of Department.
3. Decide how a Head of Department can:
(a) review their success in post;
(b) determine the success of departmental staff;
(c) establish the in-service training needs of individual
staff and of the whole department.
4. What assistance can Senior Staff give in terms of departmental
review and INSET?

Group session 2 (Sat p.m.)

1. Establish the major management roles of the Head of Year.

2. How can a Head of Year review his/her success in carrying
out these roles?
3. How should the role of tutor be decided?
4. How can senior staff help in the process of review?

Group session 3 (Sun a.m.)

1. Complete unfinished tasks from Group Session 2.

2. Briefly, draw up a framework for reviewing the success and
needs of department and year staff. Indicate how senior staff
should be involved in this process.

190
 Appendix 1

Follow-up work

Identify what you feel are the INSET needs for:

(a) yourself;
(b) individuals in your department;
(c) the whole group (dept/team);
(d) whole school.

191
Appendix 2

Ways of Evaluating

We see at least three distinct ways of collecting information.

A.— Quantifiable Data

This type of data is the easiest to collect and is open to statistical
analysis. Extreme care should be taken when using this type of
data in isolation as other evidence should be gathered to enhance
reliability. Quantifiable data is often open to hidden layers of
error, e.g. we are all aware of the dangers of publicizing
examination results without other information on the schools
concerned—intake, resources, staffing, etc.

Examples of quantifiable data which may be useful

(a) pupil attendance which can be narrowed down into year

groups or even tutor groups.
(b) staff attendance.
(c) external examination results.
(d) staffing—age structure, deployment on curriculum etc.
(e) capitation.
(f) punishments (pupil).
(g) pupil attainment.
(h) number of pupils receiving free meals/uniform grants etc.
(i) repairs to building,
(j) truancy, etc., etc.

Clearly there is a plethora of data which is available in school,

either readily available or in need of collation. Additional
information can often be gathered quickly by questionnaire. This
type of data collection is often seen as non-threatening, especially

192
 Appendix 1

if general information. However the more precise the data the

more threatening it may become e.g. examination success in Mr
X’s class or attendance in Mr Y’s, and staff absence are minefields.

B.— Self Evaluation Data

A large number of LEAs have issued checklists for teachers who
wish to become involved in self evaluation. These checklists cover
the classroom teacher, to the headteacher.
Clearly there are other methods of collecting data on one’s
own performance. These include: using a diary which provides
a running, in-depth record of one’s work, recording of lessons
and then evaluating the result, the taking of notes during and
after lesson, personal observation of specific parts of the lesson
using a predetermined checklist/matrix. There are of course other
methods which can be used by the teacher, however one must
be clear about the questions one is asking, the data which will
be collected and how it will be analysed and the effects on future
action. The major criticism which can be levelled at self-evaluation
data is its validity and reliability. The use of others in evaluation
does enhance our chances of getting it right.

C.— Interpretive/Illuminative Evaluation Data

There are a number of approaches which fall into this area. We
can group them into three categories:

1. The use of outsiders such as advisers, inspectors, H.E. staff,

management personnel from industry, colleagues from other
schools, etc. These outsiders need to be accepted and trusted
by those being evaluated. Their roles and the areas in which
they may act, must be clearly defined. Feedback from out-
siders will need to be negotiated, perhaps modified before
being accepted.
2. Group evaluation is often useful where team meetings are
a regular feature of everyday life in the institution. By using
these natural meetings we can harness a potentially strong
evaluative function. It is in group meetings that plans for
future action can be drawn up, tasks distributed and targets
set. The extension of these meetings to include discussion
and agreement of assessment/evaluative techniques for team
tasks/targets is clearly necessary. Regular feedback sessions

193
Appendix 2

involving reports on progress, comments from the team,

and the introduction of other data turns meetings into effective
gatherings. Group evaluation may start with group or team
targets to avoid threat and build trust and confidence before
moving to individual target/tasks. The group meeting is also
vital in terms of clarifying roles and taken for granted
assumptions about colleagues.
3. Evaluation by other colleagues in the institution. This can
range from a geography teacher asking colleagues to observe
his classroom practice to the head and deputy (curriculum)
being asked to spend a week in the English department
observing classroom practice, meeting and reviewing with
the department the curriculum and resources. Where the
decision is taken to use appraisal interviews as part of the
process then a prerequisite must be classroom observation.

Extract from ‘Whole School Evaluation and Staff Appraisal: A

Practical Guide for Senior Staff’ by S.M.Slater and R.S.Long,
Evaluation in Education, 1984

194
Appendix 3

Staff Appraisal

Staff appraisal should be seen as an integral part of the overall

programme of school evaluation. The process will be successful
if a satisfactory climate has been developed in which there is
mutual respect and trust between the reviewer and reviewee. The
interview should be constructive, honest, supportive and not
threatening to the individual. It should be considered supportive
and challenging and be two-way, whatever the respective status
of the parties involved. The appraiser will be under an obligation
to provide professional development support to the appraisee
whenever it is felt appropriate.
The general aim of staff appraisal is to improve quality within
the education service. For individual teachers it should be to
recognize, support and develop effective practices; to identify
areas for development and to generate programmes for support
and action.

Principles and practice of appraisal

If staff are to be encouraged or required to give of their best
then opportunities must exist to provide discussion about their
performance in relation to expectations. Staff must then receive
feedback on both expectations and performance.
Teachers have the right to have access to whatever is written
about them as part of the appraisal, and the right to respond or
appeal. They have a right to expect a negotiated programme of
professional development. Employers and those in authority also
have a right to know what is going on in school/sections and a
right to expect teachers to develop and expand their skills through
professional development.

195
Appendix 3

Who Appraises?
It is important to emphasize that there is more to appraisal than
an appraiser going through a document with appraisee. Training
for the appraiser is essential. Such training should come through
a structured programme of professional development and be part
of the staged programme mentioned earlier.
Who appraises whom will have been negotiated and decided
within the school. There are a range of possibilities:

the headteacher being the sole appraiser;

the headteacher appraising senior staff and heads of section,
followed by heads of section appraising their staff;
a school appraisal group, etc.

Schools will clearly decide what suits their own particular needs,
however the principle should be that appraisal interviews are two
way and developmental. All staff must be fully informed about
the principles, practices and intentions of the programme.

Before the interview preparation

What is to be discussed at the interview may be decided in a
variety of ways:

(a) an appraisal document containing a range of areas for

discussion and used in all interviews;
(b) an appraisal document drawn up to relate to particular
posts in the school;
(c) an appraisal schedule drawn up by the appraiser and
appraisee prior to the interview and agreed by both;
(d) a ‘pre meeting’ to discuss the major areas to be tackled
during the interview.

Prior to the appraisal interview time will need to be allowed for

the gathering of information, and, as mentioned earlier, this should
include classroom observation and observation of the teachers,
in the context of their work. Part of this gathering of information
will by necessity revolve around the teacher’s job description/
role responsibility. The appraisal process, including the stage of
gathering information, should be positive and seek to identify
the teacher’s successes as well as identifying areas for
improvement. The criteria for gathering information on which
judgement may be made should be clear to all staff involved.

196
 Appendix 3

The interview
The climate must be such that a genuine exchange of opinions
can take place. The interview must not be rushed and contingency
plans should be made if there is insufficient time. The environment
should be free from interruptions and allow for confidential
discussions to take place. Attention should first be focused upon
the review of past successes in the light of the information gathered
and then on areas for improvement. Discussion should take place
on the teacher’s roles/responsibility and how this should be enhanced/
supported in the future. The interview must give an opportunity
for a two-way exchange of views and for an opportunity to discuss
the appraiser’s performance. During the interview both parties should
agree on notes to be made, new targets to be set (which may be
used as a focus for the next appraisal interview), and on future
action in terms of areas such as INSET needs.

After the interview

A. There should be an opportunity to follow up the interview

with any areas of concern which did not arise at the interview
or where upon reflection new views are forthcoming.
B. The interview will need to be followed by action and the
monitoring of this activity. The action will include monitoring
progress towards new targets, or developing in-service
training programmes. It is important that improvement is
recognized and encouraged and this should be part of the
school’s evaluation process.

Appraisal interviews should be:

1. Part of the whole school evaluation programme.

2. Two-way and mutually advantageous.
3. Developmental.
4. Based on reliable information and criteria based
observations.
5. Understood and supported by all those who are taking part.
5. Conducted within suitable surroundings.
7. Encouraging, supportive and challenging.
8. Periodic and always followed up.
Extract from ‘School Evaluation—A Guide For Secondary Schools’,
unpublished draft document, Metropolitan Borough of Solihull.

197
Index
Abraham Moss High School, 190–1;
see also evaluation (secondary
schools)
accountability, 2–8, 12–13, 17
Adams, D., 61
advisers, LEA: as appraisers, 27, 28,
129, 152, 193; as moderators, 56;
own need for appraisal, 26
Alexander, R., 138
amalgamated schools, appraisal in,
Ch.8 pp.121–36; advantages, 124–
5, 126–7; initial discussions, 123–
7; interviews and follow-up, 128–
33; observation, 134; staff
reactions, 124–6; tutor’s role,
122–3, 127–8
AMMA, 12, 16, 172
appeals and arbitration, 27, 55–6, 72,
161, 167, 195
appraisal: advantages and benefits,
33, 69–70, 82–4, 131, 169–70;
(identifying talents), 124–5, 126–
7; aims and objectives, 22, 32, 57,
67–9, 87, 119, 143–4, 195;
(primary aim children’s
education), 22, 181; (staff care),
124; background and history, 2–8,
104; criteria, 22–5, 62, 119–20,
172–5, 195; industrial and
commercial models, 14, 58–9, 63,
155, 175; informal assessments,
21, 47, 114, 137–8; is appraisal
needed?, 61–5; meanings, 9–17;
methods, 25–6, 192–4; planning
and preparation, 65–72, 142–4,
167, 196; problems and
disadvantages (see also teachers’
fears), 81–2, 120, 132, 141–2,
168–9; skills and training needed,
75–6, 91–3, 132–3, 159, 196;
some reactions, 80–1; strategies
for introducing, 60–3, 176; time
schedule, 72–4, 76; who
appraises?, 27–8, 129, 139–41,
169, 178–9, 193–4, 196;
(headteachers), 149–52; who
observes?, 157–9; who should be
appraised?, 26; see also
evaluation, headteachers,
interviews, observation, self-
appraisal
arbitration see appeals
Arnold, F., 106, 168, 169, 174
Ashlawn School see amalgamated
schools
Aspects of Secondary Education, 91
Assessment of Performance Unit, 6
assessment of pupils, 5–6, 25
Bailey, P., 166
Baker, Kenneth, 12–13
Bell, L.A., 9, 18, 168, 169, 174
Better Schools, 4, 10, 14, 15, 17, 88,
104
Blackburn, K., 139
Bunnell, S., 164
Butterworth, I.B., 8–9
Callaghan, James, 3
career development see professional
development
Certificate of Pre-Vocational
Education (CPVE), 6
classroom observation see
observation
Clift, P., 7, 9, 27, 141, 151
Committee of Heads of Educational
Institutions, 151
198
Index
confidentiality, 36, 96, 119, 128, 146
cost of appraisal, 168 see also
resources
Croydon, 7–8
Cumbria, 8, 16
curriculum, 3, 5–6, 29–31; in school
evaluation, 87, 91, 106, 107, 108
Delaney, P., 140
disciplinary matters, 142, 144
Education Act (1986), 4, 6, 88, 104,
142
Elliot, G., 7
employers, 13
evaluation, whole-school, 8–9, 138,
85–103, 104–20; primary schools,
Ch.7 pp.104–20; aims and
objectives, 109–13; class teacher’s
autonomy, 105; planning and
preparation, 106–8, 114–17;
recording and reporting, 119;
secondary schools, Ch.6 pp.85–
103, 189–91; aims and objectives,
86–8; essential elements, 90–1;
external pressures, 88–9;
recording and reporting, 101–2;
sample management course, 189,
190–1; suggested framework, 93–
9; training for, 91–3
Framework for the Schools
Curriculum, A, 5
Fry, N., 63
Gautney, T., 2
Gough, R.G., 172
governors, school, 13, 23, 151, 152
Grace, G., 2, 3
Grant-Related In-Service Training
(GRIST), 6, 91, 97, 99
Green, A., 105
Green Lanes Primary School see
evaluation (primary schools)
Guidelines for Review and Internal
Development in Schools (GRIDS),
104, 109, 179
Hancock, D., 10–11, 15, 19
headteachers, Ch.9 pp.137–53;
appraisal of, 26, 28, 115, 129,
137, 147–53; as appraisers, 27–8,
139–41, 196; job descriptions,
111, 147–9; need for commitment
199
to appraisal, 130; role in whole-
school evaluation, 92–3, 106–9,
138–9; training for appraisal, 91–
2
Hellawell, D., 147
ILEA Junior School Project, 25
incompetence, 9–10, 13, 141–2
informal appraisal, 21, 47, 114, 137–
8; see also self-appraisal
(teachers) in-service training
(INSET), 43, 57, 90–1, 97–9, 128;
costs, 168; management courses
(samples), 189, 190–1; see also
professional development
inspectors, LEA see advisers
interviews, 38–42, 93, 95–6, 115–19,
128–32, 139, 144–6, 178–9, 196–
7; and classroom observation,
160–1; follow-up, 42–3, 76–7,
197; interviewing skills, 39–42,
132–3; planning and preparation,
34–8, 50–2, 196; recording and
reporting, 26, 51–2, 72, 73, 101–
2, 119; sample questions, 41, 48–
9, 74–5, 129–30, 145, 150;
specimen interview, 52–5; time
and setting, 35–6, 38, 50–1, 52,
123, 130, 146, 197; see also
confidentiality
James, C., 8
job descriptions, 23–4, 95, 113, 130,
143, 147; headteacher, 111, 147–9
Joseph, Sir Keith, 4, 10, 11, 15, 16–
17, 142
Killing, J.P., 63
LEAs, 7–8, 86–7; and curriculum
management, 6; duty of staff
development, 167; training-
courses for appraisal, 91–2; see
also advisers and under names of
authorities
Leigh, P.M., 3
Long, R.S., 194
management, 87, 90–1, 133; course
examples, 189, 190–1; of teaching
force, 15–16; see also skills and
training under appraisal
Midwinter, Eric, 12, 13
Miles, J., 175

moderation, 24, 27, 55–6, 161
Montgomery, D., 16
Moore, H., 147
Newman, J., 8
Nias, J., 172–3
Nisbet, J., 3, 173
Nottinghamshire, 8
NUT, 11, 12, 16
Nuttall, D., 8, 173–4, 176
observation, classroom, 25, 101, 134,
140–1, Ch.10 pp.154–63; aims
and objectives, 156–7; criteria,
156; need for prior agreement,
158; strategy for introducing, 163;
suggested model, 160–3; what
should be observed?, 159–60; who
should observe?, 157–9
Oxfordshire, 7
parents, 12–13, 26, 137–8, 151
Park Hall School, 189; see also
evaluation (secondary schools)
pay, teachers’, 11, 56
peers, appraisal by, 28, 151, 157–8
primary schools, Ch.4 pp.44–57;
informal appraisal, 45–7;
preparation and planning for
appraisal, 48–52; specimen
interview, 52–5; see also under
evaluation
professional associations see unions
professional development, 141, Ch.11
pp.164–81; as aim of appraisal,
22, 57, 68, 87, 119; criteria, 172–
5; and school development, 175–6,
179–81; teacher in charge, 176;
see also in-service training,
professional tutor
professional tutor, role of, 122–3,
127–8
promotion, 11, 141
Quality in Schools: Evaluation and
Appraisal, 10, 88, 105
redeployment, 168
resources, 28–9, 50, 56, 82, 168
Rumbold, Angela, 11
School Curriculum, The (1979 and
1981), 5
Index
School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions
of Employment Orders, 1, 4–5, 11,
88, 142, 147
Science 5–16, 30
secondary schools see under
evaluation
self-appraisal by pupils, 47, 114, 157
self-appraisal by teachers, 21, 45–6,
73, 157, 193; questions to be
addressed, 166, 167
Sharp, R., 105
Shipton, D.G., 172
Sidwell, D.M., 7
Slater, S.M., 194
Solihull, 8, 16, 85, 87, 109; draft
appraisal document, 195–7
Somerset, 151
staff development see professional
development
Stephens, E., 164
Stewart, V. and Stewart, A., 61
Suffolk, 7, 14, 15, 88, 104; on
headteachers, 149
target-setting, 37, 95, 113, 197
teachers: classroom autonomy, 105,
172–3; fears and anxieties, 17–18,
82, 121–2, 141, 156, 168–9;
incompetent, 9–10, 13, 141–2;
rights, 167, 195; see also appeals,
professional development, self-
appraisal
Teaching Quality (DES), 11, 14, 16,
17
Teaching Quality (NUT), 12
Technical and Vocational Education
Initiatives (TVEI), 6
Those Having Torches see Suffolk
training for appraisal, 75–6, 91–3,
132–3, 196
Trethowan, D., 11, 174
Turner, P., 9, 141, 151
‘1265’ contractual hours, 103
unions, teachers’, 11–12, 16, 129,
135, 172
video-recording, use in appraisal
training, 76
Warwick, D., 174, 176
White, J., 2–3
Wilcox, B., 4, 14, 176, 168
Williams, Shirley, 4
200